MICHAEL OFOSU SAKYI v. THE REPUBLIC
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- BABARA A. YENSU (MRS), (PRESIDING)
- GEORGE K. KOOMSON, J.A.
- ERIC BAAH, J.A
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Constitutional Law
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Ghana Court of Appeal, per Baah, J.A., addressed an appeal challenging narcotics convictions on two fronts: the reliability of Ghana Standards Authority testing in the absence of ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation, and the legality of prosecuting under the repealed Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Law, 1990 (PNDCL 236) after the Narcotics Control Commission Act, 2020 (Act 1019) commenced. The High Court had convicted the appellant on five counts and imposed ten‑year sentences to run concurrently, acquitting on a money‑laundering count. The Court of Appeal held that ISO certification is voluntary and not legally required, and that the GSA’s use of internationally accepted methods (HPLC, GC/MS, LC‑MS) produced credible results. On repeal, the court applied section 34 of the Interpretation Act, 2009 (Act 792), which preserves accrued liabilities and allows prosecutions to be continued as if the repealed enactment remained in force. The appeal was dismissed, with Ackah‑Yensu, J.A. and Koomson, J.A. concurring.
BAAH, J.A
INTRODUCTION
This appeal is centred on a few but concrete legal issues, as to the legal effect of laboratory tests on suspected narcotic drugs by the Ghana Standards Authority (GSA) which is yet to receive the ISO/IEC/17025 certification, and the effect of the prosecution of appellant under the Narcotic (Control, Enforcement and sanctions) Law, 1990 (PNCL236), at a time it had been repealed without any reservations, by the Narcotics Control Commission Act, 2020, (Act 1019).
CHARGES
Appellant at the court below was originally charged with four criminal counts on 16 December 2010. The charge sheet was substituted with a six-count charge sheet on 11 May 2020. The six counts levelled against him are the following:
Count 1- Possession of narcotic drug without authority, contrary to section 2 (1) of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Act, 1990 (PNDCL 236).
Count 2- Attempted exportation of narcotic drug contrary to section 56 (1) and 1 (1) of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Act, 1990 (PNDCL 236.
Count 3- Possession of narcotic drug without authority, contrary to section 2 (1) of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Act, 1990 (PNDCL236).
Count 4- Use of property for narcotic offences contrary to section 10 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Act, 1990 (PNDCL 236).
Count 5- Use of property for narcotic offences contrary to section 10 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Act, 1990 (PNDCL 236).
Count 6- Money laundering, contrary to section 1 (1) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2008 (Act 749).
The particulars and facts of the case are irrelevant to this appeal.
JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT
After a plenary trial, the trial High Court in its judgment dated 10th June 2021,convicted appellant on all the counts, except on count 6. He was sentenced to 10 years IHL on each of the counts. The sentences are running concurrently.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
Dissatisfied with the convictions and sentences, appellant filed a petition of appeal on 17 June 2021, with the following grounds of appeal:
a. That the judgment cannot be supported having regard to the totality of the evidence on record.
b. That the trial judge committed grave error when she convicted the appellant under a repealed law.
No additional grounds of appeal were filed as intimated in the notice of appeal.
GROUND 1: That the judgment cannot be supported having regard to the tota