The Republic Vrs Iddrisu Muftur@ See Me & 2 Ors. [2022] GHACC 37 (17 November 2022)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT AMASAMAN – ACCRA ON THURSDAY THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE HER HONOUR ENID MARFUL-SAU, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE CASE NO. D4/03/2022 THE REPUBLIC VRS. 1. IDDRISU MUFTUR @ SEE ME 2. TWO OTHERS (AT LARGE) ACCUSED: A1 PRESENT PROSECUTION: ASP. HANSON ARMAH PRESENT COUNSEL: ANTHONY COBBINAH ESQ. FOR ACCUSED PERSON PRESENT JUDGMENT The Accused Person is charged with one count of Assault by imprisonment contrary to section 85(1), one count of Extortion contrary to section 151 and one count of Threat of Death contrary to section 75 all of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The facts as presented by Prosecution are that on 18th January, 2020, the Accused and two others at large went to the complainant’s shop at School Junction at Anyaa and took him in Accused person’s car to Pokuase against his will. According to Prosecution, they accused the complainant of stealing a catalytic converter from the Accused person’s vehicle when it was worked on by the complainant earlier. Prosecution says that the Accused persons demanded a ransom of GHȼ2,000.00 from the complainant or else they will kill him. Prosecution says that fearing for his life, the complainant fiancée who sent the amount through mobile money to the Accused for the release of complainant. A report was made and A1 was arrested and arraigned before this court. Prosecution called three witnesses in support of its case. PW1 was Aseidu Edmund, PW2 was Samuel Odoom and PW3 was the investigator, D/Insp Isaac Ogbey. PW1, the complainant testified that on 18/01/2021, at about 2:00pm, the Accused sent one Sule to his shop to repair his broken exhaust pipe. According to him his worker wielded the exhaust but the Accused failed to pay an amount of GHȼ30.00 charged. According to him, six months later, the Accused returned to his shop and accused him of cutting off his converter which was untrue as he did not work on the converter. He testified that the Accused begun to torment his life from that point. He stated that one day on his way home, the Accused together with two other men met him and kidnapped him under the pretext of sending him to fix a car at an unknown destination. He added that when he requested that he call people to accompany him, the Accused refused and sent him away without his consent. On their way, he says that the Accused asked him why he cut his converter and he informed him that he did not do that. He testified that Accused asked him for an amount of GHȼ60.00 and when he was unable to get it, he asked him to call people for help. He stated that the Accused finally took a ransom of GHȼ2,000.00 before releasing him to go. He testified that he made a report at the Anyaa Police Station, but it yielded no results. According to him, the Accused made him buy a new converter however two years later Accused came to inform him that the converter he purchased for him is not good. According to him, on 19th January, 2022 the Accused asked him to bring the converter so he called four of his colleagues to accompany him due to his previous experience with Accused. He testified that the Accused asked him to join him on his motorbike to Abokobi but he refused and picked a commercial vehicle with his friends. Upon arrival, the Accused informed them that his gear box is damaged so they should pay an amount of GHȼ900.00 if not he will not allow them to go. He testified that they deceived him that he will hear from them the next day and the next day they made a report at the Anyaa Police Station. According to him the Accused was invited to the Station, and he reported himself but he started to misbehave in front of the commander, so he was detained to assist in investigations. The following Exhibits were tendered and admitted by PW3: - Exhibit A & A1: Charge Sheet and Brief Facts - Exhibit B: Statement of Asiedu Edmund - Exhibit C: Investigative Cautioned Statement of PW1 - Exhibit D: Statement of Philip Armah - Exhibit E: Statement of Samuel Odoom - Exhibit F: Statement of Sophia Osei Perprah - Exhibit G: Statement of Edmund Asiedu - Exhibit G1: Statement of Edmund Asiedu - Exhibit H: Investigative Cautioned Statement of A1 - Exhibit H1: Charge Cautioned Statement of A1 - Exhibit H2: Charge Cautioned Statement of A1 When Prosecution closed its case, the Accused was called upon to open his defence. He testified on oath by means of a Witness Statement dated 1st November, 2022. The crux of his testimony is that he purchased a vehicle from a garage which needed repairs after a friend of his had crashed the vehicle into a wall, so upon a friend’s recommendation, he sent the vehicle to PW1 to have the bumper and fender fixed. He testified that he purchased the headlights and gave it to PW1 who asked for a workmanship of GHȼ50.00 but he pleaded, and the amount was reduced to GHȼ30.00 and this amount was delivered to PW1 through one “Blue”. He testified that he sent the vehicle to another mechanic for other works but the fuel consumption was high so he sent the vehicle to another shop where it was detected that the converter had been cut. According to him, since PW1 was the first person to work on the car, he called the friend who introduced him to PW1 and informed him, but he did not get any response. According to him, later on a report was made at the Police station as he pursued PW1 to get his converter for him. He testified that he asked PW1 to pay GHȼ6,000.00 but PW1’s boy stated that he could pay GHȼ2,000.00 so he asked him to send the amount to one KD’s phone. He testified that he was not happy so he indicated that he was sending PW1’s boy to the CID Headquarters but along the way the fuel in the vehicle got finished and he left PW1 in the car to go and get fuel but when he returned, PW1’s boy had left and the money sent had been blocked. He testified that he never saw PW1’s boy again and 6 months later he called and sent him GHȼ170.00. He says that this is just a plan to have him jailed and silenced as he is the Mbrantehene in his area. As already indicated, count 1 is a charge of Assault by imprisonment contrary to section 85(1)(c) of Act 29. The Section provides as follows: “85. Different kinds of assault (1) For the purposes of section 84, “assaults” includes (c) imprisonment.” Clearly then, the section under which the Accused is charge is not an offence creating section but a description of Assault. The offence of Assault is under Section 84 of Act 29. The Particulars of Offence provide as follows: “…For that you on the 18th day of January, 2020 at Anyaa in the Greater Accra Circuit and within the Jurisdiction of this Court, you intentionally and without his consent imprisoned Edmond Asiedu.” In the case of REPUBLIC v. DUFA AND ANOTHER [1976] 2 GLR 18 it was held as follows: “The failure to refer to the correct section, i.e. section 3(1) (a) of N. R. C. D. 17 in the charge sheet was a mere omission and provided the particulars were sufficient to give the reasonable information as to the nature of the charge the mistake did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.” I therefore consider that no miscarriage has been occasioned by quoting section 85(1)(c) instead of Section 84 as the particulars of offence disclose sufficient information to the offence. The direct evidence of PW1 is that the Accused did in fact pick him against his will in his vehicle and demanded an amount of money before he released him to go. PW2 testified that because Accused had kidnapped PW1 before and taken a ransom of GHȼ2,000.00, that was why he together with three others accompanied PW1 when Accused came after PW1 in January, 2022. The defence of Accused is silent on this incident. Though Sophia Osei Perprah was not called as a witness in this matter, her statement to police was tendered as Exhibit F. Though of little probative value, she indicates in the Statement that she sent an amount of GHȼ2,000.00 when PW1 called her crying one evening. In his Cautioned Statement, Exhibit H1 and during cross examination by Prosecution, Accused denied kidnapping PW1. He however admits under cross examination that he picked up PW1 in his vehicle. According to him, he did so to send PW1 to the Regional Police Headquarters, but his fuel got finished so he left PW1 alone in the car to get the fuel and when he returned PW1 had left. From the evidence before me, I am unable to find that the Accused has provided an explanation to the charge which is acceptable or reasonably probable or that the Accused has created a doubt in the case of prosecution. I therefore find him guilty on count 1 and he is hereby convicted. Count 2 is a charge of Extortion. Section 151 provides as follows: “A person who extorts property from any other person by means of threat commits a second-degree felony.” In this case, PW1’s direct evidence is that he was detained in the Accused Person’s vehicle and accused demanded money from him and it was only after GHȼ2,000.00 was sent that he was released. Again, in his defence Accused makes no mention of this incident. What he refers to is PW1’s boy who he was sending to the CID Headquarters when his fuel got finished. However, under cross examination he admits that he was with PW1 in his vehicle and was sending him to Regional Police Headquarters when his fuel got finished. He added that he did not ask PW1 for money while in the vehicle but PW1 himself offered to pay for expenses incurred on the vehicle because he does not want any Police Station business. He also admits that an amount of GHȼ2000.00 sent was blocked which clearly corroborates the Statement of Sophia. From the entirety of evidence before me, I find that Accused has failed to produce any explanation before the court which is reasonably probable. I am unable to accept from the evidence that PW1 willing sat in the vehicle and willingly called Sophia to send money to Accused just to avoid a drive to the Police Station which according to Accused he had been informed from the beginning that he was being taken to before he joined the vehicle. I find that the requisite standard has been established by prosecution accordingly Accused is found guilty and convicted on count 2. Count 3 is a charge of threat of death. Section 75 provides as follows: A person who threatens any other person with death, with intent to put that person in fear of death, commits a second degree felony.” The Particulars of offence indicate that on 1st April, 2020, the Accused threatened Edmond Asiedu with a cutlass with intent to put him into fear of death. From the entirety of the evidence before me, I am unable to find especially from PW1’s own direct evidence that such an incident occurred. In the circumstance I find that as the ingredients of the offence have not been established, the charge fails. A1 is accordingly acquitted on count 3. H/H ENID MARFUL-SAU CIRCUIT JUDGE AMASAMAN 7