REPUBLIC v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ASAMANKESE: EX PARTE IDE ZABRAMAH AND OTHERS
January 31, 1972
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- QUASHIE-SAM J
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Immigration law
- Administrative Law
January 31, 1972
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Quashie‑Sam J. of the High Court issued certiorari to quash a deportation recommendation and, upon providing reasons, further quashed the convictions and sentences of Ide Zabrama and thirty‑one other non‑citizens tried in District Court II, Asamankese. The record showed a single statement of offence reciting two charges—being in Ghana without valid documents and being in a prohibited area without a permit—without any particulars, followed by guilty pleas and immediate sentencing to four months’ hard labour plus deportation recommendation. The court held that section 12(1)(e) of the Aliens Act does not create a triable offence; deportation under that section is an executive function via ministerial order under section 13, with its effects in section 14. Although section 9A(4) creates a triable offence, section 12(2) permits judicial recommendation of deportation only upon conviction for an offence punishable by imprisonment without an option of fine; because section 9A(4) carries such an option, the magistrate exceeded jurisdiction. These errors and excesses warranted certiorari, leading to the quashing of the deportation recommendation, convictions, and sentences.
JUDGMENT OF QUASHIE-SAM J.
On 19 January 1972 I made an order quashing the order of the District Magistrate's Court, Asamankese, made on 27 July 1971, recommending deportation of 32 aliens after their trial by the court and reserved my reasons. I now give my reasons for granting the order of certiorari.
[p.401]
The applicant, Ide Zabrama and 31 others were arraigned before the District Court II at Asamankese charged with the following offence as shown in the record of proceedings:
"Being in Ghana without valid documents: Section 12 (1)(e) of Act 160/63. Being in a Prohibited Area without permit: Section 9A (1) and (4) as amended by N.L.C. Decree 259/68 and Regulation 9 (1) [sic.] and 2 (1) of L.I. 612/69 of Act 160/63."
Though the record of proceedings shows only one statement of offence, it recites two offences, namely, being in Ghana without valid documents and being in a prohibited area without permit. Furthermore the record of proceedings shows no particulars whatsoever in support of the offence or offences but states that all the applicants pleaded guilty to both charges.
On the face of the record the applicants were made to plead to what purported to be two charges under one statement of offence and until then the trial court itself was not seised with the information upon which the prosecution had been mounted. This information was narrated verbally in the court only after the plea, whereupon the court convicted and sentenced each person to four months' imprisonment with hard labour with a recommendation for deportation after serving sentence. That the charge disclosed no particulars of offence is a gross irregularity or error on the face of the record for, especially in a charge such as being in a prohibited area without permit, it is necessary to disclose the particular prohibited area or areas and other particulars necessary for giving reasonable information to the person or persons facing the charge or charges as to the case he or they have to answer.
The mandatory provisions of section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), as amended by the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1965 (Act 261), s. 1. are: [His lordship here read the provisions as set out in the headnote and continued:] It is apparent on the face of the record that these mandatory provisions were omitted in framing the charge or charges in this case.
In the case of the Commissioner of Police v. Wenyonu (1958) 3 W.A.L.R. 459, C.A. where similar circum