OKPARA v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Ollennu J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was tried in the Circuit Court, Accra, jointly with one George Frank Cleland Bruce, on a charge sheet which charged the said George Frank Cleland Bruce with four counts of forgery, four counts of falsification of accounts, and four counts of stealing; and charged the appellant with four counts of possessing forged documents, and four counts of aiding and abetting the said George Frank Cleland Bruce to steal. The appellant and the said George Frank Cleland Bruce were convicted on each of the counts on which each stood charged. The appellant appealed against his said conviction on a number of grounds; the following are the most important of them: (1) that there was no evidence to connect the appellant with the stealing to make him aider and abetter in a crime of stealing as charged, and (2) there was no evidence to prove that the appellant knew that the documents in question were forged or not genuine.

Learned state attorney, for the respondent, conceded that there was no evidence to establish any of the charges of stealing; and further that there was no evidence to connect the appellant with the acts upon which the charges of stealing preferred against the said George Frank Cleland Bruce were based.

[p.33]

The offence of aiding and abetting implies the commission, by one person, of a substantive offence, and another person aiding and abetting the principal offender in the commission of that substantive offence. Therefore a person cannot be convicted of aiding and abetting where no substantive crime is proved to have been committed: R v. Mensah.1

Particulars of the counts of possessing forged documents were given as follows: "did have in your possession a certain forged document ...which you knew not to be genuine." On the charges of possessing forged documents the learned circuit judge made the following findings: "I am satisfied therefore that the alterations in the originals were made after the licences had been signed on the instigation of and with the knowledge and concurrence of the second accused." The second accused is the appellant. The circuit judge continued: "I am satisfied the second accused knew that the licences were forged and he had them in his possession."

Knowledge of falsity of a document is not always capable of direct proof; the best way to prove it is to lead evidence of facts from which the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that the person having possessi