REPUBLIC v. PETER KWAME GYASI

HONYENUGA, J.A.

I have read the judgment of my brother Dzamefe JA and I agree with the recital of the facts, the law and his conclusion that the appeal be allowed.

However, I wish to address a conspicuous matter which was not addressed in his judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his written submissions that if A11 who is the key person that introduced A12 who played an instrumental role in the whole incident. A8 who also introduced PW1 who was the culprit of the incident have been acquitted and discharged on the basis of insufficient evidence to ground their conviction, he does not see why A10 (appellant) who played a minor role compared to A8 and A11 could be convicted based on the same evidence. As already stated, the appellant and others were charged with conspiracy to commit crime namely; Robbery contrary to section 23 (1) and section 149 of Act 29/60. He and others were also charged with Robbery contrary to section 149 of Act 29/60. I would not recite the provisions of these laws since my brother has ably done so. The question is should the appellant be acquitted because the other conspirators have been earlier acquitted on appeal? It is trite law that where two or more persons are tried on the same charge and the evidence adduced before the court with regard to all the accused persons is substantially the same, the conviction of some and acquittal of others of the accused persons would be an inconsistent result unless it was shown that the apparent inconsistency is the result of some significant difference either as to a matter of fact or law which affects some and not the others accused persons. Therefore, any conviction based on the same charge and the same evidence would result in an inconsistent verdict that cannot be allowed to stand. In Lodonu v The Republic [1973] GLR 355 CA, Annan JA stated the opinion of the court succinctly as follows:-

“In our view where two or more accused persons are tried on the same charge and the evidence adduced before the court with regard to all the accused persons is substantially the same, the conviction of some and the acquittal of others of the accused persons would be an inconsistent result unless it is shown that the apparent inconsistency is the result of the trial is attributable to some significant difference either as to a matter of fact or law which affects some and not the others of the accused persons. Where there are no such matters of difference the results are inconsiste