KOBINA BADU AIKINS v. REPUBLIC

JUDGMENT

AYEBI J.A.

On 29th July 2010, an Accra High Court convicted the appellant on the charges of:

(1) Attempted exportation of narcotic drug contrary to s.56(a) and section 1 of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Act, 1990 (PNDC Law 236).

and

(2) Possession of narcotic drug contrary to section 2 of the Narcotic (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Act, 1990 (PNDC Law 236).

Upon the conviction, the statutory sentence of 10 years IHL on each count to run concurrently was imposed on him.

The appellant has appealed against both conviction and sentence on five grounds as follows:

(a) The learned trial judge erred in refusing to uphold the submission of no case and calling on the accused to open his defence.

(b) The conviction is perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial.

(c) The trial judge failed to evaluate the evidence of the accused.

(d) The trial court was wrong in his assessment and inference and concluding that the accused had prior knowledge of the existence of the narcotic drug in the parcel.

(e) The trial judge erred in his application of the law on knowledge and possession.

The facts which led to the prosecution of the appellant are as follows: the appellant is a level 300 student of Regent University. On 28th January 2009, he went to the office of World Express International, a courier service provider, at the Kotoka International Airport with a box which he alleged contained shea-butter. Appellant wanted the package posted to someone in London, U.K.

The office manager of the courier company (PW1) received the box and examined it in the presence of the appellant as they normally do. The examination revealed two parcels wrapped in black polythene bag concealed under an ice-chest and placed in the box. PW1 drew the attention of both the appellant and his office colleague (PW2) of the black polythene bags. Being suspicious, PW1 reported the matter to the police. The appellant was arrested and when the parcels were cut open, compressed dried leaves suspected to be Indian Hemp were seen. Forensic Laboratory examination of the leaves tested positive as Indian Hemp, hence the charges against the appellant.

PW1 and PW2, both officers of the courier company gave evidence for the prosecution. Their evidence in totality and essence is not different from the facts as stated above. And on the record, that is all the prosecution’s evidence in support of the charge of attempted exportation of narcotic