THE REPUBLIC vs OSEI KWASI JEFTER @ PASSWORD & ANOR

Through a plea bargain reached between the Accused Persons and the Prosecution, and announced to the Court on 4th June, 2025, the Accused Persons, through Counsel, have pleaded guilty to the offence of Manslaughter under S. 46 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960, Act 29. Upon that, this Court, on the said day, convicted the accused persons, and adjourned to consider its sentences. Lawyers for the Accused Persons have been heard on mitigation for their clients. Both counsel made identical prayers to the Court. They were unanimous on the reliance on the ages of their clients at the time of their arrest. They were juveniles.

They were first-time offenders. Both, since arrest, have been on remand in prison custody for around 3 years. Counsel urge the court to consider the need to help the Accused Persons reform and rejoin society. They also urge on the Court that the conduct of the accused persons, since arrest and prosecution, have not caused any problems, and since they cannot be held responsible for the delay in the earlier truncated trial, the Court should take all those circumstances into consideration in reaching its sentences.

The Court acknowledges that the plea of guilty to the charge of Manslaughter represents some responsibility for the death caused. A prolonged trial is now to be avoided by this. Indeed, by law, as juveniles at the time of their arrest, the Accused Persons were entitled to some diminished responsibility for their actions. Had they remained juveniles as at today, their sentences would have been a maximum of 3 years, which they would have been deemed to have served by time on remand (see: Bosso vs. Republic ]2009] SCGLR 420). They were however, not prosecuted under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2003, Act 653, but under the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960, Act 30. An initial trial was truncated due to a juror becoming disqualified for reaching or passing the age of 60. At the time of truncation, it had been reasonably revealed in cross-examination of the Investigator that, at least, the 1st Accused Person was a juvenile at the time of arrest and arraignment. The fact revealed that the Investigator knew or is supposed to have known from evidence which he concealed that the 1st Accused Person was a juvenile at the time of arrest and arraignment is very disturbing, considering the significant man-hours deployed so far and wasted as a result.

All pleas and addresses by the Prosecution and Counsel have duly