GH - ISHMAEL ADJEI AKA AKWASI YAAFO v. THE REPUBLIC

The appellant was arraigned before the District Court Nyankomasi Ahenkro on the

charges of Conspiracy to commit crime namely Defrauding by False Pretences

contrary to section 23(1) and 131 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) and the

substantive offence of Defrauding by False Pretences contrary to section 131 of the

same Act.

The facts of the case as presented by the prosecution are the complainants Mercy

Akyea –Adjei aka Akua is a farmer aged 32 years and Emmanuel Appiah a

businessman aged 23 years. They both reside at Assin Dawomako. The appellant aged

28 years is also a businessman and a carpenter deals in second hand clothes. He resides

at Assin Foso Pumpside.

On 29th December 2021 one of the complainants Mercy Akyea Adjei received a phone

call on her MTN No 0599585079 from a user of Vodafone NO. 0204935273 indicating

that the user was an official of MTN Network working at their Head Office in Accra.

The caller told her that a customer had made a wrongfully transferred some money to

her mobile money account and due to that her SIM card had been blocked. The caller

asked her to go to a nearby merchant shop for guideline and reactivation of the SIM

card. Thereafter she went to Emmanuel Appiah’s merchant shop where the numbers

for the reactivation of her SIM card were given. Another MTN number 055220565

bearing the name Mary Enstie was given to the merchant to dial together with some

code numbers. After several conversations a sum of GHC3.080.00 was withdrawn

from the Merchant. A report was made to the police at Assin Anyinabrim where the

court placed an order on the said Vodafone number and MTN Network Services for

the full details of the users of the said numbers. The appellant’s name came up as the

one using the Vodafone number and his accomplice Mary Entsie too was given as the

user of the MTN number 0552205651. The police traced the appellant and arrested

him. After investigations, the police charged him with the offences above.

At the trial, the appellant pleaded guilty with explanation to the 1st count and on the

nd count he pleaded guilty simpliciter. The Judge recorded the explanation but ruled

that the explanation given by the appellant confirmed his guilt. The court therefore

convicted him on his own plea of guilty and sentenced him to 18 years IHL on each

count to run concurrently. It ought to be noted that the judge imposed the sentence

after he gave the appellant the opportunity to put in a plea in mitig