INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE v. ASARE PANYIN.
1931
DIVISIONAL COURT (COLONIAL)
GHANA
CORAM
- Sir George Campbell Deane, Chief Justice
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Administrative Law
1931
DIVISIONAL COURT (COLONIAL)
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case arises from a “case stated” appeal following the conviction of the Odikro (Headman) of Amanasi for assault by unlawful imprisonment. On December 2, 1930, cocoa buyer Oliver Redmayne Croudace of Messrs. Haddock Parker and Company traveled from Nsawam with labourers to collect purchased cocoa near Amanasi. Villagers blocked the road, armed persons seized the cocoa and escorted Croudace’s labourers to the Odikro’s compound, where the defendant detained them under guard from about 2 a.m. until daybreak without preferring any charge. The defendant claimed he acted under superior chiefs’ instructions enforcing an “Omanhene’s oath” forbidding cocoa sales. Deane C.J. held that Section 118 of the Native Administration Ordinance does not apply in criminal proceedings; that imprisonment constitutes assault; and that no statutory or customary justification existed. No by-law prohibited cocoa sales; a “lawful order” requires legal authorization; a “lawful oath” cannot create laws and must be recognized by customary law. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction affirmed.
DEANE, C. J.
On 31st December, 1930, Mr. Warrington, District Commissioner of Kibi, convicted the defendant who was defended bỷ Mr. Koranteng on a charge tried by him of assaulting one Wangara Zaberrima and others and fined him £5 or in default one month's imprisonment with hard labour. The defendant thereupon being aggrieved at his conviction applied to the District Commissioner to state a case for the opinion of this Court on the ground that the decision was erroneous in law. This the Commissioner agreed to do and this is the case. "At the hearing it was proved :-
"1. That the accused gave instructions for the Zaberrima “ labourers to be arrested.
"2. That the accused deprived the Zaberrima labourers of "their liberty and confined them in his compound for a period of " four or five hours,
" 3 . That the accused was acting on the instructions of his " superior chief or chiefs and believed that he was within his rights " in so doing-And (whereas) I the said District Commissioner "being of opinion that the facts proved constituted an assault "upon the Zaberrima labourers and the protection afforded to " chiefs by section 118 of the Native Administration Ordinance did " not apply inasmuch as the accused was not acting in the supposed " execution of powers vested in him as Odikro of the village but " in the execution of an unlawful order issued to him by a superior " native authority did adjudicate and determine that the accused" " was guilty of assault and did order him to pay a fine of £5 or in "default suffer one month's imprisonment." Omit the word whereas which I have placed within brackets and it is quite clear what is meant by the statement. The case shortly stated isdefendant arrested and imprisoned the accused-in so doing he was acting on the instructions of his superior chief or chiefs; the orders given by these chiefs were in my opinion unlawful and the Odikro in obeying them was not exercising the powers which as Odikro he thought he possessed and is not protected by section 118 of the Native Administration Ordinance. I' therefore convicted him.
At the outset it may be pointed out that section 118 of the Native Administration Ordinance has nothing to do with the case. That section protects chiefs in actions brought against them for bona fide mistakes made in the supposed execution of powers vested in them, subject to the proviso set out in section 119. This, however, is not a civil action brought against a chief, but is a criminal proceeding