JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.A.
The appellant, a major in the Ghana Armed Forces, was tried by General Court Martial at Tamale on two alternative charges, namely,
(1) That he behaved in a scandalous manner unbecoming of an officer contrary to section 32 (1) of the Armed Forces Act, 1962 (Act 105).
OR
(2) His conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline contrary to section 54 (1) of the Armed Forces Act, 1962.
He was acquitted and discharged on the first alternative charge but was found guilty on the second alternative charge. Accordingly he was convicted and dismissed from the Army.
In this appeal, he has challenged the legality of the finding that led to his conviction and dismissal on the following grounds:
(1) That the learned judge advocate failed to deal adequately with the issue of corroboration.
(2) That the learned judge advocate misdirected himself by non-direction on the question of identification which was crucial.
(3) That the conviction is unreasonable having regard to the evidence.
(4) That the learned judge advocate failed to deal adequately with the defence put up by the appellant.
The facts of the case have been admirably condensed in the particulars in each alternative charge as follows: that he, the appellant, at Tamale on 20 December 1974, under the pretext of giving Madam Rahenatu Abu, wife of 154493 Private Sidi Amadu, a lift in his car to the OR Quarters did drive the said Madam Rahenatu to a secluded spot in the bush, and did seduce her. Since the word "seduce" has not only a legal meaning but also an ordinary meaning it would be better to rely on the facts as narrated by the complainant herself to understand what the prosecution meant by “did seduce her.” She testified that about 6.30 p.m. on 20 December 1974, she prepared food and took it to the Commanding [p.480] Officer’s house where her husband Private Sidi Amadu was on guard duty. While returning home a car stopped and the driver offered her a lift after introducing himself as the B Company Officer Commanding. The complainant also mentioned her husband's name and the driver of the car replied that he was the boss of the husband and that the complainant should not be afraid. Upon this assurance, the complainant sat in the car and the driver started to drive her home but when she realised that the vehicle had passed her home, she requested she should be dropped but the driver said he was going to the gate of the camp to collect something. However, the car drove
