THE REPUBLIC v. JEFFERY ABANWINE alias AKLUGO
2022
DISTRICT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER HONOUR HALIMAH EL-ALAWA ABDUL-BAASIT
- MADAM PHILOMENA SACKEY
- VIDA DANQUAH
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Constitutional Law
- Human rights Law
2022
DISTRICT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Defence counsel for a fourteen-year-old juvenile facing a defilement charge made an oral application to discharge him, arguing that both the accused and the alleged victim, eleven-year-old Victoria Yeboah alias Dansoa, were below Ghana’s age of sexual consent (sixteen), rendering prosecution of only the boy discriminatory under Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution. The court reviewed Section 101 of the Criminal Offences Act (Act 29) and emphasized its gender-neutral definition of defilement and the irrelevance of a child’s consent. It discussed consent with reference to Black’s Law Dictionary, affirmed the age of sexual consent at sixteen, and explained that juveniles in conflict with the law are properly tried under the Juvenile Justice Act (Act 653), noting UN guidance on minimum age of criminal responsibility. Concluding that the legal framework permits prosecution despite both parties being minors, the court dismissed the application and directed the trial to proceed.
RULING
This is a Ruling on a viva voce Application by Counsel for and on behalf of the Juvenile
herein praying for the court to discharge the Juvenile.
Brief Facts:
On the 16th of August 2022, the Juvenile was charged and arraigned before the court for
the offence of Defilement contrary to Section 101(2) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960
(Act 29). The Particulars of Offence stated that the Juvenile, aged Fourteen (14) years, on
the 19th of July 2022 at Sahara Dansoman in the Greater Accra Region and within the
jurisdiction of this court had carnal knowledge of Victoria Yeboah alias Dansoa, a
female child aged 11 years. Trial commenced on the 10th of November 2022 but on the
15th of December, 2022 when the Investigator was being cross-examined, learned
Counsel for the Juvenile prayed for the Juvenile to be discharged. The basis of his
submission is that the trial is contrary to Article 17(1)(2)(3) of the Constitution 1992. He
stated that the facts as demonstrated shows clearly that both the Juvenile and the
alleged victim are below the age of sexual consent below per the laws of Ghana. He argued that the age of sexual consent in Ghana is Sixteen (16) years and since the
Juvenile just like the alleged victim is below the age of 16, it is discriminatory and
contrary to the constitution to single out the Juvenile merely because he is a boy or a
male and prosecute him. He argued further that assuming without admitting that there
was indeed any sexual contact between the Juvenile and the alleged victim, Defilement
as defined by Section 101(1) of Act 29 emphasizes on any child and does not refer to
male or female, so that where a girl engages in sexual intercourse with a male child
below 16 years, with or without the male child’s consent is liable for the offence of
defilement. He submitted that where the girl is below the age of 16, she cannot be the
subject of prosecution of Section 101(1) supra because she is below the age of sexual
consent and the law presumes that she does not know what she is doing.
Counsel continued that same principle is applicable where a male child engages in
sexual intercourse with a girl. He relied on an article written by Prof J.A.N. MensaBonsu (as she then was) titled The Road not Taken: A Perusal of the Deficiencies in
our Criminal Law Jurisprudence as published in a book titled Mobilising the Law for
Ghana’s Future: Appraising to Revolutionise, Edited by Dowuona-Hammond,
Christine and Ors, 2020 at pag