CITATION: [1998-99] SCGLR 112
Facts of the case:
In this case, George Bonsu, alias Benjilo, was the second accused in a case involving five persons charged with drug-related offences, including possession of narcotic drugs under PNDCL 236. The accused persons were initially arraigned before the Greater Accra Circuit Tribunal and were granted bail. Two of them, the first and fifth accused, subsequently jumped bail and fled Ghana.
The case was later transferred to the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal. The two absconding accused remained absent, but the Regional Tribunal proceeded to try them in absentia, together with the remaining accused persons. They were all convicted. Bonsu appealed to the Court of Appeal and subsequently to the Supreme Court, arguing, among other things, that trying the two absent accused persons without fresh notification of the trial before the Regional Tribunal rendered the proceedings a nullity.
Legal Issue:
The chief legal issue was whether the trial of the first and fifth accused persons in their absence, after they had previously been notified of the charges and had absconded after being granted bail, violated Article 19(3)(a) of the 1992 Constitution and thereby vitiated the entire trial.
Article 19(3)(a) provides that a criminal trial should take place in the presence of the accused unless the accused refuses to appear after being duly notified of the trial.
To the Decision of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the two absconding accused persons had already been notified of the charges and the pending trial. They appeared before the Circuit Tribunal, were granted bail, and thereafter deliberately absconded and refused to return for trial.
Their subsequent transfer to the Regional Tribunal did not change the fact that they had already been notified and had, by their conduct, demonstrated their refusal to participate in the trial. Therefore, the Regional Tribunal was entitled to proceed with the trial in their absence under Article 19(3)(a) of the 1992 Constitution.
The Supreme Court also dealt with other evidentiary issues, including the requirement that possession of narcotic drugs involves not merely physical custody or control but also knowledge of the presence and nature or quality of the drug.
How Do You Apply This Principle?
This case establishes that if an accused person has been arraigned, knows the charges, appears before court, is granted bail and subsequently deliberately absconds, the court may, subject to Article 19(3) and the applicable procedural requirements, proceed with the trial in the person’s absence.
Follow @brakopowerslawhub on social media and subscribe to our newsletter for more legal insights, updates, and educational content.
Be First to Comment