THE REPUBLIC v. NII KWASHIE GBORBILOR IV AND FESTUS NII DJATOR BOTWE

JUDGMENT

The accused persons are before this court on two charges namely Conspiracy

to commit crime to wit: Failure to notify police of your desire to hold special

event contrary to section 101) of the public order act 1994 (act 491) and

sections 23|1] the criminal offences act 1960 (act 29) and failure to notify

police of desire to hold a special event contrary to section 1 (1) of the public

order act 1994 (act 491)

The brief facts narrated by the prosecution were that on 28th day of August 2020

at about 10.00pm, the Accra Regional Police Command received an information

that some chiefs were being installed amidst gunshots in the Ngleshie Amanfrom,

Accra without notifying the Police of their desire to hold a public event. Upon the

information, the Regional Command dispatched patrol teams to Noleshie A

manfrom to forestall any breach of peace and ensure public peace and order. On

arrival, Police met scores of people on the street and around the Ngleshie

Amanfrom Palace, drumming amidst gunshots. Police arrested A1 Ni Kwashie

Gborbilor IV and A2 Festus Nii Djator Botwe, both traditional rulers of the

Ngleshie Amanfrom. In their investigation cautioned statement, Al and A2

admitted the offence and stated among other things that they previously notified

Police before the emergence of the Corona Virus and assumed it was enough.

They also stated that just as the injunction placed on the installation of the subchiefs was set aside, they organized and held the event. After investigations, A1 and A2 were charged with the offence

as stated on the charge sheet and put before this honourable court.

In C.O.P V. Antwi [1961] G.L.R 408, the court stated the burden of proof

in criminal cases as follows;

“The fundamental principles underlying the rule of law are that the burden of

proof remains throughout on the prosecution and the evidential burden shifts

to the accused only if at the end of the case for the prosecution an

explanation of circumstances peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused

is called for. The accused is not required to prove anything; if he can merely

raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, he must be acquitted;

The burden on the accused when called upon to enter his defence as stated

in the case of RICHARD BANOUSIN VRS THE REPUBLIC (CRIMINAL

APPEAL NO: J3/2/2014; 18th MARCH 2014), the Supreme Court

speaking through His Lordship Dotse JSC defined beyond reasonable doubt

as:

“What beyond reasonable doubt means