THE REPUBLIC v. SALISU SULLEY, FATAWU FUSEINI, HARDI KUDUS, ADAM KUDUS, JORBRILA KARIM AND FAISAL NANTOMA

JUDGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

The Accused persons except for A6 who is at large were arraigned before the Court on 29th August

2022 and charged with various offences specified below.

a) A1, in count one, was charged with Stealing: contrary to Section 124(1) of the Criminal

Offences Act 1960, Act 29.

b) A2, in count two was charged with Dishonestly Receiving: contrary to section 146 of the

Criminal Offences Act 1960, Act 29.

c) A3, in counts three, four and five was charged with Causing Unlawful Damage: contrary to

section 172 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960, Act 29, Unlawful Entry: contrary to section

152 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960, Act 29, and Stealing: contrary to section 124(1) of the

Criminal Offences Act 1960, Act 29.

d) A4, in count six was charged with Dishonestly Receiving: contrary to section 146 of the

Criminal Offences Act 1960, Act 29.

e) A5, in count 7 was charged with Dishonestly Receiving: contrary to section 146 of the

Criminal Offences Act 1960, Act 29.

PLEA OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS

The charges as stated in the charge sheet against each accused person were read to them

individually in the Mampruli language to their understanding after which A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5

pleaded Not Guilty to the respective charges against them.

BURDEN OF PROOF:

The Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges against them, which places the burden of

proof on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused persons. The burden of proof and how

it can be discharged by the prosecution to secure a conviction of the Accused persons are elaborated

below.

Article 19(1) and (2) (c) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana stipulates that:

19. Fair Trial

“1. A person charged with a criminal offence shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time

by a court.

2. A person charged with a criminal offence shall

c. be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty;”

Sections 11(1) (2) and (3), 13(1) and (2) and 15 (1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (N.R.C.D. 323) have

well settled the evidential and the persuasive burden that the law casts on Prosecution in a criminal

matter. It provides as follows:

Burden of producing evidence

11. (1) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a

party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling on the issue against that party.

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