THE REPUBLIC v. MORO ISSAH
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The accused was arrested for possessing ten black polythene parcels of cannabis and was charged under section 2(1) of PNDCL 236. The prosecution needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had custody, knowledge of the presence, and the nature of the drug. The court referred to multiple precedents affirming the necessity of demonstrating both physical possession and mens rea for a conviction. The prosecution failed to present the original arresting witnesses but relied on the investigator’s testimony and the accused’s own statements. The accused claimed ignorance of the content but was found inconsistent in his statements. The court found the prosecution's evidence consistent and convicting, sentencing the accused to ten years with hard labour considering his age and lack of prior convictions.
JUDGMENT
The accused person before me has been charged on one count of Possession of Narcotic Drugs Without lawful Authority, contrary to section 2(1) of PNDCL 236. The particulars of the offence are that on 29/05/2014, the accused had in his possession ten (10) black polythene parcels of cannabis with net weight of 818.3080 grams.
A summary of the facts which led to this case are that at about 3pm on 29/04/2014, the accused was arrested by members of Old Zongo Community Watch Committee at the Kumasi Central Market on suspicion of carrying narcotic drugs. When the complainants collected a black polythene bag which he was holding, it was found to contain ten (10) black parcels of dried leaves suspected to be cannabis. He was handed over to the Drug Law Enforcement Unit (DLUE), Kumasi and after further investigations and on the advice of the Attorney General, he was charged with the offence.
This being a criminal trial, the burden of proof of the offence rests on the prosecution. Under sections 11(2) and 13(1) of the Evidence Act, NRCD 323 the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 2 (1) of PNDC law 236 provides as follows:
"A person who, without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on that person, has possession or control of a narcotic drug commits an offence."
The prosecution must prove the under listed ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt so as to secure a conviction:
The accused had custody or control of the drugs
He knew of the presence of the drugs ; and
He knew of the nature of the drugs possessed.
Atuguba JSC in the case of Bonsu v The Republic ( 1999-2000) SCGLR 199 at pages 225 to 226 stated among other things that " A person who does not even know the nature and quality of the substance he possesses cannot be said to be engaged in illicit dealing in narcotic drugs but is merely a luckless victim whom our legislature, prima facie does not hold to ransom..."
Similarly, in the case of Ellis Tamakloe v The Republic (Unreported) Criminal Appeal J3/2/2009, 17/02/2010 SC, Ansah JSC stated with approval the Ghanaian view on possession of narcotic drugs as expressed by Ollennu JSC in Amartey v The State (1964) GLR 256 at 261 thus:
“ What is the possession proof of which without more makes a person guilty of an offence under the section 47(1) unless he proved that his possession was lawful. Upon a proper construction of the section, the possession must be possession with knowledge of