GH - OSEI AND ANOTHER v. THE REPUBLIC

Apaloo J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. On 6 May 1968, the appellants were convicted before the High Court, Accra, of the offence of conspiracy to commit wilful oppression, the particulars of which allege that both appellants:

"between the months of January and February 1966 agreed with Kwesi Armah then Minister of Trade, a public officer to commit an offence, namely, that the said Kwesi Armah should wilfully commit an abuse of his authority as such public officer to the injury of the public by contravening the principles governing the grant of import licence in issuing an import licence to the value of £G80,000 to the African and Lebanese Engineering Co."

The facts on which the charges were based were determined by a commission appointed under an Act whose validity has recently been agitated before this court, namely, the Corrupt Practices [p.706] (Prevention) Act, 1964 (Act 230). Armed with the findings of the commission, the Attorney-General availed himself of the power conferred on him by section 4 (1) of the Act and preferred the above charge against the appellants. In due course, both appellants were summoned before the High Court to show cause why they should not be convicted of that charge on the basis of the findings of the commission.

The first appellant attempted to show cause by oral evidence as well as legal argument. The second appellant contented herself with legal submissions alone: In the result neither was successful and the learned judge proceeded to convict them of the offence charged. It is against these convictions that this appeal has been brought.

In order to appreciate the somewhat elaborate arguments addressed to us on this appeal, it is necessary to relate the facts on which the charge is based. On 25 October 1965, the first appellant who was until his conviction, a legal practitioner, entered into partnership with the second appellant and two Lebanese gentlemen who were described in the partnership deed as Rahif Hamoui and Waheb Hozaifeh respectively. The business of the partnership was stated to be that of "general merchants and manufacturers." It would seem that the partners were minded of combining general import trade with the manufacture of motor vehicle spare parts. It seems plain that neither business could be carried on unless the partners were able to import both consumer and capital goods into the country from abroad. At the date of the partnership in 1965 and indeed since 1961, the Ministry of Trade had

OSEI AND ANOTHER v. THE REPUBLIC

Areas of Law

JUDGMENT