THE REPUBLIC v. ADAM SUMAYA, YUSSIF MAHAMUD AND ABDUL RAHIM SALIFU

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. On 9th June, 2022 A1 (18yrs) and A2 (15yrs) were arraigned before this court on the

charges of conspiracy to steal and stealing, contrary to sections 23(1) and 124(1) of Act

29. The particulars of the offences stated that A1 and A2 did agree to act together with

a common purpose to commit crime, to wit, ‘stealing’ and stealing five (5) cattle

valued at GHS15,000.00 belonging to one Wahab Abdullah. On the same charge sheet,

A3 (30yrs) was charged with dishonestly receiving the five (5) cattle, contrary to

section 146 of Act 29.

2. A1 and A2 pleaded guilty and were convicted on their own plea and punished.

However, A3 pleaded not guilty. This judgment regards the charge against A3.

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The facts as given by the prosecution are that on 26th May, 2022 the complainant,

Wahab Abdullah, sent his seven (7) cattle to the bush near his house for grazing but

later realized that five (5) cannot be traced. On 2nd June, 2022 complainant then

received information that two Fulani men had been arrested at Gbanyamli, a suburb

of Tamale for stealing two (2) sheep and five (5) cattle and had sold same to A3. On

receipt of this information, complainant lodged a complaint at the police station and

the police went to Gbanyamli and arrested A1 and A2. During interrogation, A1 and

A2 admitted to the offence and led the police to the house of A3 at Zelendo, a village

under the Karaga District, as the one who bought complainant’s cattle at

GHS15,000.00. A3 was arrested and during interrogation, he admitted to having

bought the stolen sheep from A1 and A2 for his butchery work but denied that of the

cattle. They were later arraigned before this court.

DEFINITION OF THE OFFENCE

4. Section 146 of Act 29 provides that, “A person who dishonestly receives any property

which he knows to have been obtained or appropriated by any offence punishable

under this Chapter shall be liable to the same punishment as if he had committed that

offence.”

BURDEN OF PROOF

5. By a plea of not guilty, the accused puts himself in charge of the court, meaning that

his guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The mandatory requirement that

the guilt of the person charged ought to be established beyond reasonable doubt and

the burden of persuasion on the party claiming that the person was guilty, has been

provided for in ss. 11(2), 13(1), 15 and 22 of Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323).

Significantly, whereas the prosecution ca