THE REPUBLIC v. EDMUND ADDO
2024
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- SACKEY TORKORNOO (MRS.) CJ (PRESIDING)
- AMADU JSC
- PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC
- KULENDI JSC
- ASIEDU JSC
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
- Interpretation of Statutes
2024
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the Applicant's appeal, holding that the repeal of Section 136 of the Electronic Transactions Act, 2008, Act 772 does not automatically end the prosecution of the accused person. The court found that Section 34(1)(d) and (e) of the Interpretation Act, 2008, Act 792 saved Section 136, allowing for the continued prosecution under the existing law, and that this prosecution is not contrary to Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution.
AMADU JSC:
BACKGROUND
THE REPUBLIC VS. EDMUND ADDO. This was an appeal grounded on the
principal complaint that, following the repeal of Section 136 of the Electronic
Transactions Act, 2008 (Act 772) by Section 98 of the Cybersecurity Act, 2020 (Act
1038), his continuous prosecution at the High Court, on the three counts of Child
Pornography contrary to Section 136(b) of the Electronic Transactions Act, 2008,
Act 772 is wrongful in law.
grounds of the appeal argued before the ordinary panel of this court.
(a) “That the honourable Court of Appeal erred in law in
holding that a person may be convicted on a criminal offence
which has been repealed, which holding has occasioned a
miscarriage of justice.
(b) That the honourable Court of Appeal erred in law in
holding that the Appellant can be convicted on the repealed
Section 136(b) of the Electronic Transactions Act, 2008, Act
772, which holding has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
(c) That the decision is unreasonable and cannot be supported
having regard to the evidence.
(d) That the Court of Appeal erred in law when it held that
judge-made law is ‘written law’ within the intendment of
Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution.
(e) That the Court of Appeal erred in law when it applied the
Interpretation Act, 2009, Act 792 to interpret Article 19(11)
of the 1992 Constitution.
(f) That the Court of Appeal erred in law in applying the
Interpretation Act, 2009 Act 792.
(g) That the Court of Appeal erred in law when it failed to
distinguish between the effects of a repeal on criminal
matters from effect of a repeal in civil cases.”
revered brother, Asiedu JSC, dismissed the appeal. In that judgment of the
ordinary panel, this court set out the key issue for determination, at page 6 of the
judgment as follows:
“Whether the repeal of a crime creating enactment under our
laws, means that an accused person can no longer be
prosecuted for the offence which he had, allegedly, committed
and was being prosecuted for, before a court of competent
jurisdiction? Does the repeal of an offence creating enactment,
automatically bring to an end, the prosecution of an accused
person for an offence which he had, allegedly, committed
before the repeal of the enac