REPUBLIC VRS AKISA & ANOTHER (UE/BO/DC/B7/09/2024) [2025] GHACA 9 (13 March 2025)

*HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* CORAM: HIS WORSHIP MAWUKOENYA NUTEKPOR (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE), SITTING AT THE DISTRICT COURT, BONGO IN THE UPPER EAST REGION OF GHANA, ON THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 CASE NO. UE/BO/DC/B7/09/2024 THE REPUBLIC VRS. 1. FREDERICK AKISA 2. GODRED AVAALA (DEALT WITH) TIME: 09:25AM 1ST ACCUSED PERSON PRESENT INSPECTOR DAVID DELALI OSAE FOR THE REPUBLIC ABDULAI JALADEEN, ESQ. FOR THE 1ST ACCUSED PERSON JUDGMENT Introduction 1. The accused persons were brought or arraigned before this court on the 2nd day of May, 2024 and charged for the offence of Stealing contrary to section 124(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) as amended. On 19th July 2024, the charged sheet filed on 2nd May 2024 was replaced or substituted with a new one filed on 17th July, 2024 and the plea was retaken. The 2nd accused person pleaded guilty to the charge against him on 19th July 2024. He was convicted and sentenced accordingly. *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 1 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* 2. The 1st accused person pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. As the 1st accused person pleaded not guilty to the charge against him, the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case by admissible and credible evidence, every ingredient of the above stated offence beyond reasonable doubt. In the case of Republic vrs. Adu-Boahen and Another (1993–94) 2 GLR 324 -342, the Supreme Court per Kpegah JSC, stated as follows: A plea of not guilty is a general denial of the charge by an accused which makes it imperative that the prosecution proves its case against an accused person. Since no admissions are made or may be made, unlike civil cases, the prosecution, when a plea of not guilty is voluntarily entered by an accused or is entered for him by the trial court, assumes the burden to prove, by admissible and credible evidence, every ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Facts of Prosecution’s Case 3. The facts of the prosecution’s case as presented to the court and attached to the charge sheet filed on 17th July 2024 is that Complainant Peter Npana Azekor is CEO of Maltaaba Community Bank, Bongo Agency. The accused persons (A1) Frederick Akisa and (A2) Godfred Avaala were staff of the same bank under the credit unit department and they were responsible for the disbursement and taking repayment of loans. In January, 2024 the bank detected that the credit loans to Credit with Education (CWE) which is the main income generating product in terms of loans paid by customers on monthly basis to the bank was not performing. As a result, the bank conducted reconciliation of accounts to check the possible discrepancies on the (CWE) loans disbursed to customers and their repayments. Subsequently, it was discovered that A1 disbursed cash amount of GHC732,500.00 among 40 groups and within the period of October *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 2 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* 2019 to January 2024, A1 did not pay cash the sum of GHC210,164.20 he collected from customers into the account of the bank but it reflected in the pass accounts book of the customers. A2 also disbursed an amount of GHC667,400.00 among 46 groups between October 2019 to March 2023 and cash of GHC89,504.88 was not paid into the account of the bank. The complainant reported the case to police with a copy of the reconciliation statement including other relevant documents of the accused persons. The accused persons were arrested and in their cautioned statements both admitted the offence after which they were granted police enquiry bail. However, the complainant Bank and the accused persons agreed for periodic repayment of the respective amounts. As a result, in February, 2024 A1 advanced a payment of GHC10,000.00 with remaining balance of GHC200,164.20 whiles A2 also made an advance cash payment of GHC10,000 and post payment of GHC20,000.00 in January 2024 remaining the balance of GHC59,502.00. The accused persons however failed to pay the money to the complainant as agreed. The accused persons were therefore charged with the offence of Stealing. Burden of Proof 4. In a criminal case where an accused person pleaded not guilty, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person. Article 19 clause (2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana provides that: “A person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty.” The proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), outlines this in subsections 11(2) and 13(1) and Section 22 as follows: *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 3 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* 11(2) “In a criminal action the burden of producing evidence, when it is on the prosecution as to any fact which is essential to guilt requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt. 13(1) In any civil or criminal action the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 22: In a criminal action a presumption operates against the accused as to a fact which is essential to guilt only if the existence of the basic facts that give rise to the presumption are found or otherwise established beyond a reasonable doubt and thereupon in the case of a rebuttable presumption the accused need only raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of the presumed fact”. 5. The Supreme Court in a unanimous decision in the case of Abdulai Fuseini v The Republic, reported in [2020] Crim LR, page 331 reiterated and affirmed the basic philosophical principles underpinning criminal prosecution in our courts as follows:- “In criminal trials, the burden of proof against an accused person is on the prosecution. The standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt actually means “proof of the essential ingredients of the offence charged and not mathematical proof.” Emphasis supplied *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 4 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* 6. In the case of Miller Vrs Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 ALL ER 372 at 373 Lord Denning (as he then was) explained proof beyond reasonable doubt as follows: “It need not reach certainty but it must carry a high degree of probability, proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice … If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour, which can be dismissed with the sentence ‘of course, it is possible but not in the least probable’, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice.” Emphasis supplied 7. In the case of Dexter Eddie Johnson Vrs the Republic [2011] SCGLR 601 Dotse JSC discussed the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt in some detail and cited the case of Woolmington Vrs DPP [1934] AC 462 where Lord Sankey made the following statement: “Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law, the golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt – if at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner – the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.” See the case of: Commissioner of Police Vrs *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 5 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* Isaac Antwi [1961] GLR 408 where the Woolmington principle was applied. 8. See also the following cases on the burden of proof in criminal cases: Frimpong @Iboman v The Republic [2012] 1 SCGLR 297, Gligah & Anr v The Republic [2010] SCGLR 870, Tetteh v The Republic [2001-2002] SCGLR 854, Francis Yirenkyi v Republic [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 433 at 457 and 464-466, just to mention a few. The Law on the Offence of Stealing 9. The Offence of Stealing is governed by sections 124 (1) and 125 of the Criminal Offences act, 1960, (Act 29). Section 124(1) and 125 of Act 29 provides that: Stealing 124(1) A person who steals commits a second degree felony. 125. Definition of stealing A person steals who dishonestly appropriates a thing of which that person is not the owner. In Anang Vs. The Republic {CA} [1984-86] 1 GLR 458, The Supreme Court per Taylor J.S.C, said: “… the ingredients of the offence of stealing are stated in section 125 of Act 29, and these ingredients have been authoritatively expounded by the full bench of the Court of Appeal in the case of Republic v. Halm, Court of Appeal (full bench), 7 August 1969; digested in (1969) C.C. 155 which is binding on this court. There Amissah J.A. in his inimitably lucid and impeccable manner *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 6 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* delivering the unanimous and illuminating judgment of the full bench strongly constituted said as stated in the headnote at 263: “The preliminary relationship for consideration in a charge of stealing is not so much a relationship between the person charged and some other, identified as owner, as a relationship between the person charged and the thing alleged stolen . . . For the offence of stealing to be constituted, therefore, the relations, act and intention to be proved in connection with ‘the thing’ are: (i) that the person charged must not be the owner of it; (ii) that he must have appropriated it; and (iii) that the appropriation must have been dishonest.” Abban, J as he then was in the case of Ampah and Another v The Republic (1976) 1 GLR 403 @ 412 stated as follows: "... the basic ingredients which ought to be proved in a charge of stealing by the prosecution are, firstly, that the accused was not the owner of the subject-matter of the charge; secondly, that he appropriated the subject- matter of the charge and, thirdly, that the appropriation was dishonest. If these three essential elements are proved to the satisfaction of the court, the court will be bound to convict unless the accused is able to put forward some defence or explanation which "can cast a reasonable doubt" on the case for the prosecution." *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 7 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* See also the following authorities on the elements of the offence of stealing: the book entitled “Contemporary Criminal Law in Ghana, 3rd edition by Dennis Dominic Adjei (JA), 2021 pages 339 to 340, Mensah vrs. The Republic 1978 GLR 404, Ali & Others vrs the Republic (1992) 1 GLR 570, just mention a few. From the above authorities, the elements that prosecution must prove in order to succeed in this case is that the 1st accused person (herein after referred to as “accused person”) dishonestly appropriated the sum of GHC210,164.20 belonging to the Maltaaba Community Bank, Bongo Branch. Evidence of the Prosecution 10. In instant case, prosecution in an attempt to prove its case called three (3) witnesses. PW1-Peter Npana Azekor testified as follows: “I am the manager of Maltaaba Bank Bongo Branch. The accused persons were staff members of the bank under the credit department. They were responsible for the disbursement and collection of repayment of loans. The bank detected some imbalances in the accounts of some groups that were on loan under the care of accused persons. The bank conducted a reconciliation of the accounts audit and it was discovered that, the accused persons stole cash the amount of GHC142,415.00 and GHC89,504.88 respectively. The board members of the bank called and confronted the accused persons and they admitted having stolen the said money but pleaded to be paying same periodically whiles working and the bank agreed with them. The accused persons made a payment plan with the bank as to how to repay off the stolen money. The accused persons breached the repayment plan agreement and were not saying anything to the bank. The bank again conducted *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 8 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* a second reconciliation of the remaining loan groups for A1 and it was detected that he stole cash the amount of GHC67,749.00 from the accounts of the group. On 5th January, 2024 I reported the case to police and the accused persons were arrested…” 11. PW2-No.54275 G/CPL. Soale Adams testified that on the 5th January, 2024 at about 4:40pm, a case of stealing was reported involving cash the sum of GHC231,920.08 and it was referred to him for investigation. He stated that he obtained statements from the complainant and its witnesses as well as a cash audit report from the complainant which indicated that A1 and A2 stole cash sum of GHC142,415.20 and GHC89,504.88 respectively. He testified that he also obtained pass books of customers in which A1 and A2 indicated the amount they received from customers but failed to enter the money into the accounts of the customers. He stated that his analysis of the pass books confirmed that A1 and A2 stole the cash the sum of GHC142,415.00 and GHC89,504.88 respectively. He stated it was indicated that the accused persons admitted the offence and gave a payment plan to repay back the stolen cash to the bank. He testified further that the bank again conducted a second reconciliation of the remaining loan groups and it was detected that A1 stole cash the amount of GHC67,749.00 from the accounts of the remaining groups. He tendered in evidence the following documents: a. Investigation Caution Statements of A1 dated 06/01/24 and 17/05/24 as Exhibits A and A1 respectively, b. The Charged Statement of A1 dated 24/04/24 as Exhibit B, c. A letter dated 17/04/23, a report dated 02/06/23, and Response to Memo dated 12/06/23 as Exhibits C, C1 and C2 respectively; *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 9 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* d. Internal memo dated 25/01/2024 together with Summary of Accounts as Exhibit D; e. Letter dated 15/07/23 (Payment plan by A1) as Exhibit E; and f. Pass Books or Loans/Overdrafts/Advances Approved Forms as Exhibit F series. 12. PW3- Abubakari Haruna testified as follows: “I am the internal auditor of Maltaaba Community Bank. I know the accused persons, Frederick Akisa and Godfred Avaala. The accused persons were members of staff of the bank under the credit department. The bank received a complaint from its customers that their groups were having difficulties in taking a new loan after paying off the bank the old loan. Reconciliation was done on 30 out of 40 loan groups. Details from the records showed that, the group paid off the old loan. The repayments of the old loans by the groups do not reflect in the groups accounts at the bank; records also proved that the credit officers did not pay that money into the accounts of the bank. As a result, a general reconciliation was done to check all the group loans. After the reconciliation, it was discovered that the accused persons stole cash amount of GHC142,415.00 and GHC89,504.88 respectively. The accused persons proposed a payment plan to repay off the stolen money but failed to do so. The bank again conducted a second reconciliation of the remaining loan groups and detected that A1 stole cash the amount of GHC67,749.00 from the accounts of the groups. On 5th January, 2024 the manager of the bank reported the case to police....” 13. From the evidence, the prosecution witnesses maintained during cross examination that the accused person dishonestly appropriated the sum of GHC210,164.20 belonging to Maltaaba Community Bank, Bongo Branch. This *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 10 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* amount is made up two reconciliations audit conducted by the complainant bank. The first reconciliation covered an amount of GHC142, 415.20 while the 2nd reconciliation covered an amount of GHC67,749.00. The PW3 who claims to be the internal auditor admitted that he was not a professional auditor. The report of PW3 was tendered in evidence as Exhibit D which covers the amount of GHC67,749.00. Counsel for the accused person challenged the competence of the PW3 to prepare the report as well as the procedure he used. PW3 admitted that he did not follow the laid down procedures for Audit even though his report could be termed as an Audit report so long as it was a routine checks regarding the activities of the groups under the control of the 1st accused person as a credit officer. One question worth asking is if you are not a Professional Auditor, why are you performing the work of an auditor? The PW3 also did not give the court his qualifications to show whether he has the requisite knowledge and competence or skill to perform the work of an Auditor. 14. The accused person in his statement to the police dated 17th May, 2024 (Exhibit A1) disagreed with the findings of the Auditor regarding the 2nd reconciliation. In Exhibit A1, accused person stated as follows: “…while I was with the police, the bank brought the list of 2nd imbalances groups of the 2nd reconciliation which was sum up to GHC67,749.00 I requested that I should be allowed to go through the list with the internal auditor through the bank system because I detected and spotted that some of the groups from previous reconciliation list were repeated in the 2nd reconciliation list…. I was able to go through the list with some few groups with the auditor…. We could not check the other groups because the particulars of those groups were not ready. I went through with the *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 11 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* auditor and there are some differences with the figures stated in the list which I disagreed with the bank.” From the evidence, nothing shows the accused person was given enough time to explain the discrepancies in the accounts relating to the 2nd reconciliation as the auditor and the accused person could not check the figures assigned to some of the groups. 15. However, with regards to the 1st reconciliation figure in the sum of GHC142,415.20, the accused person was given several opportunities for this issue to be resolved. He assured the bank that he will continue to check the figures and any error identified will be communicated to the bank. See Exhibits C and C2. The accused person and his family met the complainant bank to resolve the matter and the final decision was for him to pay the money. The payment plan signed by 1st accused person is admitted in evidence as Exhibit E. From the evidence, he even made part payment of GHC10,0000. The sum of GHC2,000.00 was also recovered regarding Asosiwine Micro Credit Group. See Exhibit C2 (Response to Memo dated 12th June, 2023). The accused person confirmed the decision regarding the 1st reconciliation in his statements to the police. See Exhibits A, A1 and B. If you subtract GHC12,000.00 from GHC142,415.20, the remaining balance is GHC130,415.20 which has not been paid. 16. It is worth noting that the prosecution’s evidence in respect of the first reconciliation was not challenged by the accused person during cross examination. The said evidence by PW1 is as follows: The bank conducted a reconciliation of the accounts audit and it was discovered that, the accused person(s) stole cash the amount of *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 12 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* GHC142,415.00 …. The board members of the bank called and confronted the accused person(s) and they (he) admitted having stolen the said money but pleaded to be paying same periodically whiles working and the bank agreed with them (him). The accused person(s) made a payment plan with the bank as to how to repay off the stolen money. The accused person(s) breached the repayment plan agreement and were(was) not saying anything to the bank.” 17. After the close of prosecution’s case, the court found that there was a prima facie or sufficient case against the accused person for him to be called upon to open her Defence. The court therefore called on the accused person to make a defence. It must be noted that at this juncture, the duty of the accused person is not to prove his innocence but to raise a reasonable doubt concerning his guilt by producing sufficient evidence. Sections 11(3) and 13(2) of the Evidence Act 1975, (NRCD 323) provides as follows: “Section 11(3) In a criminal action, the burden of producing evidence, when it is on the accused as to a fact the converse of which is essential to guilt, requires the accused to produce sufficient evidence so that on the totality of the evidence a reasonable mind could have a reasonable doubt as to guilt. Section 13(2) Except as provided in section 15 (c), in a criminal action, the burden of persuasion, when it is on the accused as to a fact the converse of which is essential to guilt, requires only that the accused raise a reasonable doubt as to guilt.” *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 13 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* 18. Also, Sankey LC noted in the case of Woolmington vrs. Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462 at 481 as follows: …while the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner, there is no such burden laid on the Prisoner to prove his innocence, and it is sufficient for him to raise a doubt as to his guilt; he is not to satisfy the jury of his innocence. Evidence of the Accused Person and its Analysis 19. The accused person testified without a witness. He stated in his evidence in chief as follows: “I say that on the 05/01/2024 of about 4:30pm I was in the office when the CEO Mr. Peter Npana came to me at the office with Police officers and invited me to the station. I say that the CEO told me it was about some imbalances of loans disbursed by my department in my name which I said I was working on it. I say that the issue of these imbalances has been detected in the bank for some time now, which my family was invited to meet the board of the bank for discussion. I say that they concluded with my family after the meeting, that the family should pay for the imbalances of an amount of GH₵142,415.20 while I continue to work with the bank which the family agreed and asked to be paying bit by bit while I continue to work on raising a bigger amount in order to pay all. I say that, I took over as credit officer in January 2018 from my predecessor who had challenges with loan imbalances as at the time yet the bank fail to do anything about that and just gave the unit to me. I say that my in charge by then Atongo Philip (Bishop) made me continue recovering and disbursing the loans without any audit or reconciliation. I say that, as I was a *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 14 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* new person and not conversant with the loan processes, so my predecessor and my boss were virtually doing everything with my name captured as the credit officer in charge when I did not know of. I say that some loan repayments were received by my boss as at then and entries done in the pass books with my initials which I know nothing about and such monies were not actually paid into the bank. There were also issues of system over charges that were detected and not rectified but all put in my name. I say that there were issues of mis-postings which were not rectified. There were also loans that were disbursed to some groups with some amount left from the applicants who declined their request due to their own reasons and such monies were not paid back into their accounts by Atongo Philip and the auditor Mr. Awesu Lawal. Yet they were the supervisors moving with me to the field for the disbursement. I say there were instances my boss Atongo Philip kept names of some groups and disbursed those ones by himself but my initials were put in. I say that some of the issues that led to the imbalances were because my boss was making us to balance the old loans with new disbursement. These issues were tabled to the board and the decision was that, I am supposed to pay as it was reported in my name and Atongo Philip also refused to accept responsibility. I say that even though some imbalances were identified and my family invited for a discussion on how to resolve it, the final decision was that my family will pay the imbalances, which they agreed and proposed a payment plan on monthly basis. I say that in respect of my family accepting to pay as stated above, it was purely due to the fact that the bank made a promise that if my family agreed, they were going to retain me at post while I work and the said money deducted from my salary. I say that if the bank now turns round to level stealing against me that is a breach of mutual trust from the side of the bank. I say that the bank also claimed that some *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 15 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* imbalance were detected that amounted to GH₵67,749.00. I say that during cross-examination the internal auditor testified that he only conducted and submitted one audit report to the Court. I say that if the bank and the prosecution then want this Court to believe that the imbalances were two that will be a fabrication and this Court should not allow that accession to stand. I say that, I went to the bank to meet the auditor for us to go through the list together after I was released on police enquiry bail unfortunately the auditor had travelled to his home town. I say that, I was able to go through the list with some few groups with the auditor after he return from his trip. We could not check the other groups because the particulars of those groups were not ready. I say that, I discovered from the few groups I went through with the auditor that there were some differences with the figures stated in the list which I disagreed with the bank. I say that while all this was going on my father that was sick eventually passed on after some few weeks of illness. I came after the burial and by then the case was already been sent to Court. That is all that I know about the case.” 20. This court is mandated to examine the defence of the accused person in three stages or apply what is usually referred to as the “three tier test” principle. Thus, in the Republic vs. Francis Ike Uyanwune [2013] 58 GMJ 162, C.A, or [2012] DLCA8143, the Court of Appeal speaking through Dennis Adjei, J.A. stated as follows: “The accused person must give evidence if prima facie case is established else, he may be convicted and if he opens his defence the court is required to satisfy itself that the explanation of the accused person is either acceptable or not. If it is acceptable the accused person should be acquitted and if it is not acceptable the court should probe further to see if it is *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 16 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* reasonably probable. If it is reasonably probable, the accused person should be acquitted but if it is not and the court is satisfied that in considering the entire evidence on record the accused person is guilty of the offence, the court must convict him. This test is what is usually, referred to as ‘three tier test’”. See also the case of Lutterodt vs. Commissioner of Police [1963]2 GLR 429. 21. To this court, for the explanation of an accused person to be acceptable or reasonably probable, the accused person must produce sufficient evidence. It is only after sufficient evidence is produced that a reasonable mind could have a reasonable doubt as to guilt of the accused person. See section 11(3) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) supra. From the explanation of the accused person, he stated as follows: “I say that the issue of these imbalances has been detected in the bank for some time now, which my family was invited to meet the board of the bank for discussion. I say that they concluded with my family after the meeting, that the family should pay for the imbalances of an amount of GH₵142,415.20 while I continue to work with the bank which the family agreed and asked to be paying bit by bit while I continue to work on raising a bigger amount in order to pay all….. I say that even though some imbalances were identified and my family invited for a discussion on how to resolve it, the final decision was that my family will pay the imbalances, which they agreed and proposed a payment plan on monthly basis. I say that in respect of my family accepting to pay as stated above, it *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 17 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* was purely due to the fact that the bank made a promise that if my family agreed, they were going to retain me at post while I work and the said money deducted from my salary. I say that if the bank now turns round to level stealing against me that is a breach of mutual trust from the side of the bank.” 22. It must be stated that the accused person was given several opportunities for the issue to be resolved regarding the 1st reconciliation figure in the sum of GHC142,415.20. He assured the bank that he will continue to check the figures and any error identified will be communicated to the bank. See Exhibits C and C2. 23. By a letter dated 12th June, 2023, (Exhibit C2), accused person stated as follows:- “To: Risk & Compliance Cc: Head of Credit RESPONSE TO MEMO With reference to your Memo on 5th June, 2023, I wish to state that I have checked through the figures listed on my groups as imbalances. Meanwhile I will continue to do my checking since some of the issues are old. Any error identified later from my checking will be communicated to you. Meanwhile a recovery of two Thousand Ghana Cedis is done on one of the groups (Asosiwine micro credit group) reducing the total to one Hundred *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 18 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* and forty thousand four Hundred and fifteen Ghana Cedis twenty pesewas (GHC140,415.20). Yours sincerely Sgd. Akisa Frederick” 24. Subsequently, on 15th July, 2023, a payment plan (Exhibit E) was signed by 1st accused person, his brother and head of family after the accused person and his family met the complainant bank to resolve the matter. From the evidence, accused person made part payment of GHC10,000.00. The sum of GHC2,000.00 was also recovered regarding Asosiwine Micro Credit Group. See Exhibit C2 (Response to Memo dated 12th June, 2023). There is no doubt that accused person confirmed the decision regarding the 1st reconciliation in his statements to the police. See Exhibits A, A1 and B. If you subtract GHC12,000.00 from GHC142,415.20, the remaining balance is GHC130,415.20 which has not been paid. 25. Accused person claims that his family accepted to pay the money because the bank made a promise that if his family agreed, they were going to retain him at post while he works and the said money deducted from his salary. Some questions to ask are as follows: if the accused person has not appropriated any amount of money, why did he and his family accept responsibility to pay about GHC135,000.00? Assuming without holding that 1st accused person’s family agreed to refund the money against his will, why did the 1st accused person sign *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 19 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* the undertaking to pay the money by installments for a period of forty-eight (48) months or four (4) years? See the Letter dated 15/07/23 (Payment plan by A1), Exhibit E. Why should 1st accused person agreed to work and pay money he claims he has not dishonestly appropriated or stolen? The accused person is a graduate or literate, of age and of sound mind, and the inference that could be drawn in answer to the above questions is that accused person dishonestly appropriated the sum of GHC140,415.20 belonging to Maltaaba Community Bank, Bongo Branch. 26. Be that as it may, there is no evidence that accused person was coerced or forced to sign the undertaking to pay the money. Besides, the prosecution evidence to the effect that accused person agreed to refund the money and even paid GHC10,000.00 was not challenged by the accused person during cross examination. This court is the view that the accused person’s explanation that the bank by turning round to level stealing against him, after the bank agreed with his family for him to work and pay constitutes a breach of mutual trust from the side of the bank is an afterthought. 27. Accused person during cross examination of PW1 claims that he was not trained for the job and lacks experience to the work and that some of the imbalances occurred when his predecessor was there. He is not saying all the imbalances occurred when his predecessor was there, which means some of imbalances occurred during his time as a credit officer. Accused person however did not tell the court the imbalances that allegedly occurred when his predecessor was at post. From the evidence the nature of the work is basically receiving money from customers, paying money to customers, and entering them into their accounts and pass books. If you are in charge of a group of customers and money received *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 20 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* from them were not paid into their accounts or you cannot account for those monies received, who should be held responsible? This court therefore disagrees with accused person's excuse of lack of training and experience on the job. 28. It is for the foregoing reasons that this court finds the explanation of the accused person unacceptable as he failed to produce sufficient evidence for this court to have a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. The court therefore holds that the accused person dishonestly appropriated the sum of GHC140,415.20 belonging to Maltaaba Community Bank, Bongo Branch, out of which he refunded GHC10,000.00 leaving the balance of GHC130,415.20 Conclusion 29. Having examined the whole evidence of the prosecution and Defence on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt regarding the charge of Stealing against the accused person. Thus, the ingredients of the offence of Stealing were proved beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, apart from the defence’s explanation, this court is satisfied on a consideration of the whole evidence that the accused person is guilty of Stealing. Accordingly, the accused person is hereby found guilty of Stealing. The accused person is therefore convicted for the crime of Stealing. Mitigation of Sentence and Sentence 30. The Accused Person pleaded for leniency or mercy and that the court should temper justice with mercy. He submitted that the he is a first time offender. He submitted that he paid additional GHC8,000.00 at the police station totaling *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 21 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* GHC20,000.00 he refunded out of GHC142,415.20, leaving the balance of GHC122,415.20. See submission by accused person for mitigation at pages 90-94 of the Criminal Record Book, Volume 15. 31. Some of the principles that govern sentencing are: the seriousness of the offence, the premeditation with which the criminal plan was executed, the prevalence of the crime within the locality in particular and the country in general, the degree of revulsion felt by the law abiding citizens of the society, mitigating circumstances such as extreme youth, first offender and good character. See the cases of Kwashie v The Republic [1971]1 GLR 488, Adu Boahene v The Republic [1972]1 GLR 70, and Kamil v The Republic [2011] SCGLR 300. 32. This court also recalls the purpose of sentencing to be punitive, calculated to deter others, to reform the offender, to appease the society and to be a safeguard to this country. The rate at which people dishonestly appropriate monies or properties belonging to other persons as in the instant case must not be countenanced. To this end, a sentence or punishment that will deter other likeminded individuals from engaging in similar acts must be imposed. This court has considered the circumstances of this case, plea of the accused person for mercy or leniency, and the fact that the accused person is a first time offender. This court is also guided by Ghana Sentencing Guidelines and principles governing sentencing. This court considered the fact the accused person paid the sum of GHC20,000.00 out of GHC142,415.20 leaving the balance of GHC122, 415.20. It must be stated that the offence of stealing carries a maximum punishment of twenty-five (25) years imprisonment. Unlike the High Court and Circuit Court, the jurisdiction of this court is limited to sentence of not more than *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 22 of 23 *HWMNJ@DC/BO-13/03/2025* two (2) years or twenty-four (24) months imprisonment. Accordingly, the 1st Accused person is hereby sentenced to twenty-three (23) months and one week imprisonment with hard labour. This court has taken into consideration the twenty-two (22) days or three (3) weeks spent by the 1st accused person in lawful custody as required by article 14(6) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. (SGD.) H/W MAWUKOENYA NUTEKPOR (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) *JUDGMENT-THE REPUBLIC VRS. FREDERICK AKISA & ANOTHER (CASE NO. B7/09/2024)* Page 23 of 23