THE REPUBLIC v. KWAME OWUSUMAH

JUDGMENT

The case against the accused person is for unlawful occupation of public land contrary

to section 236(4) of the Land Act, 2020, Act 1036. The said section 236(4) states:

a person who, without reasonable excuse, the proof of which lies on that person, occupies or in

any manner encroaches on or interferes with public land commits an offence and is liable on

summary conviction to a fine of not less than one thousand penalty units and not more than

two thousand penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not less than one year and not

more than three years or to both.

The offence spelt out above is not one of strict liability where the occupation or

interference with public land, once proven, is enough to find him guilty. Prosecution

must also establish that, no reasonable excuse exists for the occupation. Thus,

reasonable excuse is a defence under the law as well as a matter of proof and the

burden of persuasion lies on the person charged to satisfy the court of his reasonable

excuse.It is important to set out the burden of persuasion the two parties in this case bear, as

this case is a unique case where a burden is placed on the accused person. To start with,

the burden of proving the evidence of the crime committed by the accused person lies

unequivocally on the prosecution. This is a matter of law set out in section 15(1) of the

Evidence Act, 1975, NRCD 323. This burden requires prosecution to produce such

quality evidence that will convince the court of the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt. See section 11(2) and 13(1) of NRCD 323

11(2) In a criminal action, the burden of producing evidence, when it is on the prosecution as

to a fact which is essential to guilt, requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so

that on the totality of the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact

beyond a reasonable doubt.

13(1) In a civil or criminal action, the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party of

a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Once the evidence provided falls short of belief beyond reasonable doubt, an accused

person must be acquitted at the end of the case.

See the cases of Yeboah v The Republic [1972]2 GLR 281

Frimpong alias Iboman v Republic [2012] 1 SCGLR 297

Banousin v Republic (J3/2/2014) [2014] GHASC 10 (18 March 2014). The Supreme Court

in this case explained that:

“What “beyond a reasonable doubt” means is