SALAOU SIAKA v. REPUBLIC
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OWUSU M., (PRESIDING)
- ADUAMA OSEI, J.A.
- GYAN, J.A
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant was convicted by the High Court for possessing and attempting to export narcotic drugs, specifically heroin. Dissatisfied with the conviction and ten-year concurrent sentences, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on grounds including lack of actual narcotic drugs and accusations based on suspicion. The appellant's counsel argued errors in the charge sheet and inadequate proof by the prosecution, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, sustaining that the plea of guilty required no further proof of particulars and mandatory minimum sentences were appropriate. Thus, the conviction and sentence were affirmed.
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A:
On 9-12-2011, the High Court, found the appellant guilty on two counts of attempted exportation of narcotic drug and possession of narcotic drug without lawful authority contrary to section 56 1 [a] & 1 [1] and 2 [1] of the Narcotic Drugs [Control, Enforcement and Sanctions] Act 1990, [PNDC Law 236]. He was found guilty and convicted on both counts and sentenced to ten [10] years IHL on each count. The sentences were to run concurrently.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the appellant appealed to the Court of appeal on the following grounds;
[a] There were no narcotic drugs.
[b] The trial judge erred when he convicted the appellant on the basis of suspicion.
[c] The appellant, if anything at all ought to be convicted of supply and not possession.
[d] That the sentence is excessive in the light of ground b.
In arguing the appeal, counsel for the appellant in his written submissions dealt with two grounds together. These are grounds C and D. They read as follows:
“The appellant if anything at all ought to be convicted for supply and not possession of narcotic drugs and that the sentence is excessive in the circumstances of the case.”
He then submitted that, according to the facts given by the prosecution, the appellant was given the drugs at New Town, Accra to be delivered to another person in the USA for a fee of $3,500. However, the appellant could not lead the investigators to arrest the person who supplied him with the drugs. Counsel continued that, the trial judge should have convicted the appellant for attempted supply of narcotics drugs in the circumstances of this case. He referred to section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960, Act 30, which talks of a lesser offence. This is because the prosecution never challenged the appellant as to who owned the drugs. In effect the appellant was employed by two drug barons to accomplish their devilish act. Secondly, the quantity of drugs the appellant attempted to supply should also have been taken into consideration. From the facts of the case the appellant swallowed 40 pellets of heroin which was less than a kilogram. Consequently, the ten [10] years prison sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial court, even though was in accordance with the law was harsh. The trial judge could have imposed a lesser sentence on the appellant if the latter had been convicted of attempted supply and the quantity of the drug taken into consideration.