REX v. BANA KASSI AND OTHERS

The following joint Judgment was delivered ;-

KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, PETRIDES, c.]., GOLD COAST, AND GRAHAM PAUL, J.

The five appellants were charged in the Circuit Court of the Protectorate of Sierra Leone with the murder of one Sitta on or about 7th June, 1929, at or near Konia. All the appellants were on the 24th June, 1939, convicted of murder and sentenced to death and they all appealed ,to this Court against their convictions.

Grounds of Appeal were filed and Counsel for the Appellants argued at length on these grounds which involved questions of fact and law.

In our opinion there is no substance in the appeals of the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th accused and their appeals were dismissed accordingly.

As regards the second accused the learned trial Judge rightly found that the main evidence against him was that of accomplices and that corroboration of that evidence was required. Such corroboration the learned Judge expressly found ouly in the evidence of the witness Bokari Kamasso and convicted the second accused accordingly. In our view it is impossible to find in the evidence of Bokari Kamasso or in any other evidence corroboration of the evidence of the accomplices as, regards the second accused's complicity in this crime. Accordingly we find that the learned Judge misdirected himself on this question of corroboration and for that reason we allowed the appeal of the second accused, quashed his conviction and sentence and directed that a judgment and verdict of acquittal be entered.

It was argued before us that the witness Jabatti was not an accomplice and that his evidence against the second accused was sufficient corroboration. The learned Judge described Jabatti as an "innocent accomplice" but thought that "out of an abundance of caution" Jabatti " should be treated as an accomplice although he was probably in fact innocent of having anything to do with the crime."

Upon the whole evidence it is in our view impossible to say without considerable doubt that Jabatti was not an accomplice. The second accused is entitled to the benefit of any such doubt and in our opinion the learned Judge was right h treat jabatti's evidence as that of an accomplice and therefore not corroboration of other accomplices.

The third ground of Appeal referred to the misreception in evidence of a document namely Exhibit II, a statement made and attested by the first accused in the course of the investigations in this case. That document was apparently put in evidence at