SEY v THE REPUBLIC

A quantity of gas oil which was supplied to the Ghana Railway Corporation, Kumasi on 2 March 1989, was found to be short by 1,340 imperial gallons. Six persons, who were all employees of the corporation were, in connection with this matter, arraigned before the Ashanti Regional Public Tribunal on a charge of "doing an act with intent to sabotage the economy of Ghana" contrary to section 9(1)(f) of the Public Tribunals Law, 1984 (PNDCL 78). The act complained of.

After the trial, five of them were found guilty and convicted. The sixth accused, the appellant in these proceedings, being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, has appealed to this court on five grounds. One of them, though improperly formulated, is a most common ground of appeal. It is ground (a) of the original grounds of appeal and reads as follows: "(a) That the conviction is against the weight of evidence."

The more acceptable formulation in criminal appeals is "The conviction cannot be supported having regard to the evidence." Be that as it may, the substance of this ground (a) is contained in an additional ground (1), namely: "The conviction was an error in law because looking at the ingredients of the offence charged and the particulars thereof, nowhere in the record is there established evidence to support a conviction."

The argument with respect to the additional grounds (1) and (2) simply is that the prosecution failed woefully to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was one of those who stole the oil. It was contended that of all the seven witnesses called by the prosecution, none testified that the appellant was present at the measuring and discharge of the oil. Furthermore, it was argued, the statement of the appellant was not a confessional one either, so that as at the close of the prosecution's case no prima facie case has been made out against him. Counsel's contention therefore is that since the fifth accused whom he asked to sign the invoice covering the old oil not also implicate him in the offence, he ought to have been acquitted p.[64] and discharged.

Again the argument in support of grounds (3) and (4) is that the inferences and conclusions that were drawn from the evidence led were all in error. It was urged that the trial tribunal made a wrong finding of fact, one not supported by the evidence, when it held that the appellant to start with denied being instrumental in the signing of the invoice. The contention here is that it was this