NTUMY FRANCIS @CJ AND KWABENA BOAKYE @ A1 v. THE REPUBLIC

The 2nd Accused, now the appellant together with the 1st Accused, were arraigned

before the District Court, Jasikan on 24 February 2022 on three charges of (a) Causing

unlawful damage contrary to section 122 of Act 29/60 (b) unlawful entry contrary to

section 152 of Act 29/60 and (c) Conspiracy to commit crime contrary to section 23(1) of

Act 29/60.

The plea of both accused persons were taken. They both pleaded not guilty to counts

one and two respectively. But on count three, i.e. the Charge of Conspiracy, whilst the

1st accused person pleaded not guilty, the appellant pleaded guilty with explanation.

The court gave the Appellant the opportunity to give his explanation. And this what he

said:

“My Worship, the implements were found in my room, in my grandmother’s

house.”

The trial Court upon consideration of the explanation that accompanied the plea of

guilty by the appellant rejected same as being without substance and convicted and

sentenced him to 24 months imprisonment without an option of a fine.

Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, the appellant has come to this Court for

redress.

The facts upon which the 1

st accused, and 2

nd accused now appellant were charged are

that, the complainant Joseph Yevuga is a cocoa buyer at Worawora Cocoa shed. The 1

st

accused is a commercial motor rider and 2nd accused/ appellant is unemployed and both

are resident in Worawora. On the 22nd day of February 2022 at about 7:00 am, the

complainant visited the cocoa shed and detected that the padlocks and the hinges to the

main door of the office has been damaged and the door opened ajar. He found that

some documents hidden in the drawers had been ransacked and the safe where monies

are kept has also been tempered with, but nothing was stolen. After investigations,

accused persons were arrested and charged with offences as stipulated on the charge

sheet which.

The grounds of appeal as found in the petition filed on 14 July 2022 pursuant to order

for extension of time are as follows:

1. That the rejection of the Appellant’s explanation of Guilty with explanation was

wrong in law as to render the conviction invalid.

2. That the sentence of 24 months was excessive or too harsh.

In his written submission Counsel for the appellant raised an issue which needs due

consideration. Counsel contends that the charge for which the appeal is concerned with

is “conspiracy”. Counsel argues that since one person cannot conspire to commit a