KWABENA AGYEI v. THE REPUBLIC

JUDGMENT

WELBOURNE, JA

BRIEF FACTS:

The Complainant in this case, Mr. Joseph Adom is the CEO of J. Adom Ltd., and the accused herein Mr. Kwabena Agyei Arhin, was then the General Manager of J. Adom Ltd., until his appointment was terminated in August 2014. The accused in his employment was to report all his official duties directly to the CEO. The CEO, in October, 2012, engaged the services of an independent audit firm, John Allotey and Associates, to conduct an investigative audit work on the financial books of the company under the stewardship of the accused person. The audit firm was mandated per the letter given to them to audit the books between the years, 2006 to 2012. As the rules of auditing demands, the auditing firm wrote to the accused to invite him to be part of the exercise, since he was the one to be audited. Upon several invitations and letters from the audit firm to the accused, the accused refused to avail himself and also refused to co-operate with the auditing firm to do the work. The audit firm then went ahead and conducted their investigative audit.

The audit firm by their audit report concluded that an amount of GH₵411,181.77 which was the Company’s money had been taken and used personally by the accused, Kwabena Agyei-Arhin, without the approval of the complainant, the CEO. The Complainant based on the audit report then went to the Police Station and reported a case of stealing against the accused. The Police in their investigation then invited the accused to the Police station, and in his investigation cautioned statements, he questioned the findings of the audit report. The accused further stated that, those monies claimed to be stolen by him were used by him based on verbal approval by the complainant himself.

By a careful study of the case docket with the evidence available, the accused was charged with the offence of “Stealing” and put before the High Court.

The proceedings of the trial Court on the 16th January, 2018, stated at pages 37-38 of the record as follows;

BY COURT:

“Case is for the Prosecution to call their next witness.”

BY COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED:

“My Lord we do not know what accused is being prosecuted for. We pray that the prosecutor should furnish us with all documents the Prosecution wish to tender in evidence be made available to us.”

REPLY BY PROSECUTOR:

“I do not know why the counsel is saying he does not know why accused is being prosecuted. He gave a statement to Police. The accused is very much awa