Citation: [2021] 171 GMJ
Facts of the Case:
In this case, Ernest Thompson, then Director-General of SSNIT, and four others were charged before the High Court on 29 counts, including conspiracy to wilfully cause financial loss to the State, wilfully causing financial loss to the State and breaches of the Public Procurement Act. Thompson argued that the charge sheet did not sufficiently identify the specific acts or omissions attributable to him.
Legal Issue:
The legal issue was whether the charges gave the accused sufficient particulars and reasonable information about the nature of the offences, as required by Article 19(2)(d) of the 1992 Constitution and section 112 of Act 30, to enable them to prepare their defence.
To the Decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecution’s appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeal. The Court held that a charge must do more than merely repeat the statutory definition of an offence. The particulars must identify the basic facts, acts or omissions allegedly committed by the accused and, where relevant, provide the basis for the alleged mens rea.
How do you Apply the Principle?
This case establishes that if a criminal charge merely states the offence without identifying the accused’s specific conduct alleged against them before facing trial, it may be defective under Article 19(2)(d).
Follow BrakoPowers Law Hub for simplified Ghanaian law cases and subscribe for our newsletter now.
Be First to Comment