MALLAM ALI YUSUF ISSAH v. THE REPUBLIC
April 2, 2003
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
- WIREDU, C.J (PRESIDING)
- ACQUAH, J.S.C.
- AKUFFO, J.S.C.
- AFREH, J.S.C.
- DR. TWUM, J.S.C
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Constitutional Law
April 2, 2003
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, constituted by Chief Justice E.K. Wiredu and Justices G.K. Acquah, S.A.B. Akuffo, D.K. Afreh, and Dr. S. Twum, dismissed the further appeal of a former Minister of Youth and Sports who challenged his convictions and sentences for stealing and causing financial loss of $46,000 to the State under sections 124(1) and 179A(3)(a) of the Criminal Code. Writing for the Court, Akuffo J.S.C. found the evidence amply supported the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal and emphasized that, under the Evidence Decree (NRCD 323), an accused’s burden is only to raise reasonable doubt. The Court rejected fair-trial challenges to the Fast Track High Court’s refusals to stay proceedings and grant adjournments, affirmed that the Fast Track Court is part of the High Court, and held section 179A constitutional. Applying section 35 of the Courts Act, the Court refused to waive incarceration because restitution in lieu of sentence requires an admission of guilt. The appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
AKUFFO, J.S.C.
The Appellant is the former Minister of Youth and Sports. On 20th July 2001, the High Court convicted him on two counts of stealing and fraudulently causing the financial loss of $46,000.00 to the State contrary to sections 124(1) and 179A(3)(a), respectively, of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). The High Court sentenced him to serve 4 years in jail on each count plus a fine of ¢10,000,000.00 or, in default, 12 months in jail on count two. Additionally, the Appellant was ordered to refund the amount of $46,000.00 or, in default, serve an additional jail term of 2 years. All the sentences were to run concurrently. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against both the conviction and the sentences. On October 23rd 2001, the Court of Appeal gave judgment upholding the conviction and, therefore, dismissed the appeal. However, the court varied the sentences by quashing the 2 years' jail sentence imposed in default of making the refund ordered by the High Court.
The Appellant by his appeal herein challenges the Court of Appeal's confirmation of the conviction and the remaining sentences. The Notice of Appeal sets out 9 grounds of appeal, which may be summed up as follows:—
1. The confirmation of the conviction of the Appellant on the two counts cannot be supported by the evidence.
2. The Court of Appeal erred when it failed to evaluate the evidence in accordance with the law regarding circumstantial evidence (grounds 2 and 3).
3. The Court of Appeal erred when it failed to determine whether, with regard to the evidence of the prosecution before the High Court, the requisite standard of proof had been satisfied.
4. The Court of Appeal erred when it held that the Appellant had failed to prove that he had been framed.
5. The Court of Appeal erred when it confirmed that the Appellant's former bodyguard was not a vital witness and therefore the failure by the prosecution to call him was not fatal to the prosecution of the Appellant.
6. The Court of Appeal erred when it ignored the Learned Trial Judge's statement, which raised the Appellant's burden of proof to one beyond reasonable doubt.
7. The sentence to refund the missing amount having been declared to be enforceable by civil action, the remaining sentences of 4 years on each count are too harsh.
8. The manner in which the trial of the Appellant was conducted by the High Court deprived the Appellant of and/or infringed his fundamental human right to a fair trial