THE REPUBLIC v. ENOCH ALEKPEKPE
January 31, 2023
CIRCUIT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER HONOUR AGNES OPOKU-BARNIEH
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
January 31, 2023
CIRCUIT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
RULING ON MINI-TRIAL
FACTS
The accused person is before this court on a charge of defilement contrary to
section 101 (2) of the Criminal offences Act, 1960(Act 29).
The accused person pleaded not guilty to the charge. At the trial, Counsel for
the accused person objected to the admissibility of the statements of the
accused person on grounds that the statements were not voluntarily taken.
The court conducted a mini-trial to determine the admissibility of the
statements of the accused person.2
ANALYSIS
Under Section 120 (1) and (4) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), evidence
of a statement made by an accused person which constitutes a confession to
the offence for which the accused person is standing trial is not admissible
unless the statement was made voluntarily. The section respectively provides
as follows;
“(1) “In a criminal action, evidence of a hearsay statement made by an accused
admitting a matter which:
(a) Constitutes, or
(b) Forms an essential part of, or
(c) Taken together with other information already disclosed by the accused is a basis
for an inference of, the commission of a crime for which the accused is being tried in
the action is not admissible against the accused unless the statement was made
voluntarily.
(4) For the purposes of this section, a statement that was not made voluntarily
includes, but is not limited to a statement made by the accused if
(a) The accused when making the statement was not capable because of a physical or
mental condition of understanding what the accused said or did; or
(b) The accused was induced to make the statement by being subjected to cruel or
inhuman conditions, or by the infliction of physical suffering upon the accused by a
public officer or by a person who has a direct interest in the outcome of the action, or
by a person acting at the request or direction of a public officer or that interested
person; or3
(c) The accused was induced to make the statement by a threat or promise which was
likely to cause the accused to make the statement falsely, and the person making the
threat or promise was a public officer, or person who has direct interest in the outcome
of the action, or a person acting at the request or direction of a public officer or the
interested person.”
In the case of Azametsi & Anor. v. The Republic [1974] 1 GLR 228 @244
“In the voir dire the function of the trial judge is only to determine whether (a) the
statement alleged to have been made
AI Generated Summary
In a mini-trial (voir dire) before HER HONOUR AGNES OPOKU-BARNIEH of the Circuit Court, an accused charged with defilement under section 101(2) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) challenged the admissibility of his caution and charge statements. The investigator, designated MTPW1, said she took the statements in the presence of an independent witness named Alhassan Togbor, who explained them in Twi and Ewe, and that the accused thumb printed them; the statements were admitted as Exhibits MT "A" and MT "B." On cross-examination, MTPW1 acknowledged the complainant confirmed the accused’s language proficiency and that the independent witness was not called. The accused testified the investigator pressured him to admit the offence, there was no independent witness, and a man later entered only to preach. Applying Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) section 120 and Azametsi & Anor. v. The Republic [1974] 1 GLR 228, the court held the prosecution failed to prove voluntariness and that constitutional language-choice safeguards were breached, rendering the statements inadmissible.