REPUBLIC v. ERNEST THOMPSON & OTHERS
2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- APPAU, JSC (PRESIDING)
- DORDZIE (MRS.), JSC
- LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.), JSC
- TORKORNOO (MRS.), JSC
- AMADU, JSC
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Constitutional Law
2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court, per Amadu JSC, dismissed the Prosecution’s appeal from a majority decision of the Court of Appeal that had ordered amendment of the charge sheet against Ernest Thompson (then Director General of SSNIT) and others. Thompson, together with co-accused, faced 29 counts including conspiracy to willfully cause financial loss and contraventions of the Public Procurement Act. He sought details of the actus reus; the High Court refused, but the Court of Appeal ordered the Prosecution to provide additional particulars. Interpreting Article 19(2)(d)’s mandate to inform an accused “in detail” and applying Section 112 of Act 30, the Supreme Court held that particulars must specify the acts or omissions constituting each offence, not merely restate statutory language or list amounts/dates. It distinguished the Issa cases as fact-dependent and endorsed fairness and disclosure principles, affirming the Court of Appeal’s directive.
AMADU JSC:-
(1) The key question for determination in this appeal is, whether the offences for which the Respondent was arraigned before the High Court, satisfy the constitutional requirements of article 19(2)(d) of the 1992 Constitution and the relevant law relating to preferring charges against accused persons. In the exercise of this Court’s appellate jurisdiction which has been invoked in the instant proceedings by the Prosecution, the Court has to determine which of the two lower courts had properly applied the constitutional provisions just referred to, as well as the relevant law, to the facts on record.
(2) The appeal record discloses that, whereas the Learned Trial Judge found and held contrary to the contention of the Respondent that the offences for which he was arraigned before the High Court, as set out in the charge sheet, satisfied the necessary details and/or particulars required by the constitutional provisions of article 19(2)(d) of the Constitution and the relevant law and accordingly well laid, the majority of the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal held otherwise.
(3) In other words, while the Trial High Court is of the view that the offences set out in the Charge Sheet and in respect of which the Respondent was arraigned before the High Court, contain the necessary details and/or particulars in order for the Respondent to appreciate the nature and consequences of the offences for which he was charged, the majority of the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal held to the contrary.
(4) This appeal therefore arises out of the majority decision of the Court of Appeal dated 3rd April 2020. Following the delivery of the decision aforesaid, the Appellant herein which shall hereafter conveniently be referred to as “the Prosecution”, filed an appeal on 9th April 2020 against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in its expression of dissatisfaction with the said judgment.
(5) The notice of appeal contains five main grounds of appeal formulated and set out as follows:-
“(a) That the Court of Appeal erred when it refused to follow its own
previous decision affirmed by the Supreme Court, which is binding on the Court.
(b) The Court of Appeal erred when it held that the Prosecution has
failed to provide sufficient details, as required by Section 112 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30) in the particulars of the charges against the Appellant/ Respondent.
(c) The Court misconstrued the import and purport of