Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
1. On 24th January, 2022 the accused persons were arraigned before this court on the
charge of threat of harm.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The facts as given by the prosecution are that complainant, Musah Mumuni and his
wife together with the accused persons live in the same house at Choggu-Yapalsi, save
Musah Mahamuda (A2) who lives at Taha. Something in April 2021, the younger
brother of complainant and accused persons, Musah Yushaw, fell ill and was
admitted at Tamale Teaching Hospital, but later died. Upon his death, the accused
persons attributed the death to have been caused by complainant’s wife. Accused
persons, therefore, invited a spiritualist to perform a ritual to determine whether
complainant’s wife is a witch or not. After the ritual, the spiritualist, however,
declared that complainant’s wife was not a witch. But accused persons were not
satisfied with the spiritualist’s declaration and therefore threatened to avenge the
death of their brother. On 6
th June, 2021 accused person demanded that complainant
and his wife should relocate, else they will beat and kill them. A complaint was lodged
at DOVVSU. Accused persons denied threatening the complainant and his wife. They
were later arraigned before this court.
DEFINITION OF THE OFFENCE
3. Section 74 of Act 29 provides that, “A person who threatens any other person with
unlawful harm, with intent to put that person in fear of unlawful harm commits a
misdemeanour.”
BURDEN OF PROOF
4. 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 carries that burden to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt, there is no such burden on accused to prove his
innocence. At best, he can only raise a doubt in the case of the prosecution. This doubt
must be real and not fanciful, see the cases of Miller v Minister Of Pensions [1947] 2
ALL ER 372 at 374, COP v Isaac Antwi [1961] GLR 408 and Gligah & Atiso v The
Republic [2010] SCGLR 870.
METHODOLOGY
5. Section 73 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) provides that, “Any court, with criminal
juri