TANKO SALIFU v. REPUBLIC

AYEBI J.A.

1. On 26th November 2004, the complainant Wonder Ohene Wiafe who was ordinarily resident in Australia arrived in Kumasi at about mid-night. He carried with him three large suit-cases and a small bag. The small bag contained different currencies and personal documents. The complainant took a taxi to his mother’s house at Dichemso. When the taxi-cab pulled up at the entrance of the house, the appellant (who was second accused at the trial) and five others attacked him and took away the bag containing the monies and his documents.

2. He made a report to the police that night. The Neighbourhood Watchdog Committee members who were on patrol duties, chanced upon the accused persons on a school park. On seeing the Watchdog Committee members, the accused fled the scene but left behind some documents which turned out to belong to the complainant. The following day the appellant was arrested. The appellant led the police to a drinking bar where the members of the gang were to meet to share the booty.

3. When Issifu Sulemana @ Manoye arrived at the drinking spot he was arrested. He was charged as the first accused at the trial. The police found on him £300, US$100, 200 Australian dollars and ¢4,830,000.00. Later, Mohammed Abdulai @ Maiga, the third accused at the trial was arrested. But three others whom the members of the Watchdog Committee said they knew in their neighbourhood could not be arrested. All the six of them however, were charged with conspiracy to commit robbery contrary to sections 23(1) and 149 of Act 29/60 and robbery contrary to s.149 of Act 29/60.

4. The three of them present at the trial pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution called four witnesses. Each of the accused gave evidence but called no witness. The trial judge on 6th December 2007 in his judgment only wrote that:

“Each accused person (A1, A2 and A3) is found guilty of the offence of conspiracy contrary to section 23(1) of Act 29 and robbery contrary to section 149 of Act 29/60. Each is accordingly convicted”.

5. Before sentence was passed the appellant herein pleaded, “I ask for mercy. I have been in custody for long”. The trial judge then proceeded to sentence the first accused to 24 years IHL because he was known and then the appellant herein and the third accused to 21 years IHL on each count to run concurrently. He ordered that the sentences of the first accused and appellant herein to take effect from 1st December 2004.

6. Against the conviction a