Republic vrs. Anderson (D4/014/24) [2025] GHACC 86 (12 September 2025)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT ACHIMOTA, ACCRA ON FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE HER HONOUR AKOSUA ANOKYEWAA ADJEPONG (MRS.), CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE CASE NO.: D4/014/24 THE REPUBLIC VRS ANDERSON NANA ABEKA ACCUSED PERSON PRESENT CHIEF INSPECTOR VERONICA AMEDORME WITH CHIEF INSPECTOR EMMANUEL ADDO FOR THE REPUBLIC PRESENT KENNETH AGYEI KURANCHIE, ESQ. FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON ABSENT JUDGMENT THE CHARGE The accused person was arraigned before this Court charged with the offence of Stealing contrary to section 124(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The Republic v. Anderson Nana Abeka Page 1 of 19 THE PLEA The accused person pleaded not guilty after the charge had been read to him. The accused person having pleaded not guilty to the charge, the prosecution assumed the burden to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. FACTS The facts of the case as presented by the prosecution are that, the complainant Retired Captain Cecilia Beausoleil is a 90-year retired military officer and lives at Tesano, Accra whilst the accused Anderson Nana Abeka is a driver and lives at Accra. That due to health condition of the complainant, she needed a personal driver to take her to and from, for her health check-ups and other places as well and when the need arises. She then contacted an agency known as Nunlex Ghana Ultimate Seven Links for a driver and the accused was given to her as one. That the accused provided services for two months and was paid his salary. That on 10th June 2023 about 7:00am, the accused went to the complainant's house and took away her Mitsubishi Outlander 4×4 vehicle with registration number GE 2098-16 without her consent and his whereabouts was unknown. All efforts made by the complainant to trace the accused or the vehicle proved futile. That on same day the complainant reported the case to the police for investigation. During investigation, the police published the accused wanted in the media and as a result he was spotted and arrested at Oyibi a suburb of Accra on 19th September 2023 and handed over to police. Further investigation disclosed that when he stole the vehicle, he sold it to one Nana Yaw Kumi a car dealer at Tesano at a cost of GHS40,000.00 through one Richard Quansah. Suspect Nana Yaw Kumi also sold it to a Chinese man around Tesano in Accra. Investigation is still ongoing to trace the Chinese and retrieve the vehicle. To discharge their legal burden, the prosecution called six witnesses including the investigator. The Republic v. Anderson Nana Abeka Page 2 of 19 EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES From the evidence of PW1, Mrs. Cecilia Beausoleil who is also the complainant, the accused person was her driver. She further testified that on 10th June, 2023 at about 6:30am, her house help, Juliana Asiedua informed her that her Mitsubishi Outlander car key is not where they normally place it. That she told her house help to go out and check if her car is there; and her house help went out and found out that her Mitsubishi Outlander car with registration number GR-2098-16 was not there. That she called Mr. Aidoo, a headmaster of her school to come to her house and check the other vehicles if everything is intact. That Mr. Aidoo came to check on her other two cars being Jeep and Kia Morning and found out that the batteries and car covers on the said vehicles had been taken away together with her Mitsubishi Outlander vehicle. That she went to check her CCTV camera and found out that the accused person was the one who took her car, car covers and batteries away. That she went to Tesano police station to lodge a complaint for assistance. According to PW2, Juliana Asiedua, she is a house help to the complainant herein, and she knows the accused person as her madam's driver. PW2 testified to the effect that on 10th June 2023 at about 5:30am, the accused person came to the house of the complainant and went inside. That after the accused person had left, they realized the complainant’s car key had been taken away and the car was also not there. PW3, Bismark Brenya testified to the effect that he is a security man at ACC garage company at Weija. That the accused person came to him to ask about the process of selling a car; and the accused later informed him that he has a Mitsubishi Outlander car that he wants to sell. That the accused person brought the car to the garage. According to PW3, he informed his boss, Richard Quansah about it who also found someone to buy the car. The Republic v. Anderson Nana Abeka Page 3 of 19 Richard Quansah was called as PW4 and he testified among others that he is a car dealer who sells cars at Weija. That he got to know the accused person through his security man Bismark Brenya, (PW3) who told him that the accused person said he was selling his Mitsubishi Outlander car. That he was not interested in buying the car but also informed his friend Nana Yaw Kumi after the accused person asked him to find someone to buy the car. That Nana Yaw Kumi showed interest and bought the car at GHS40,000.00 from the accused person who received the said money in his presence. PW5, Nana Yaw Kumi testified that he is a car dealer; and knows the accused person through his friend Richard Quansah who told introduced the accused person to him as the owner of the said Mitsubishi Outlander. That the accused person drove the said car to his garage and they sent the car to customs for verification and they checked everything and informed him to pay a duty of GHS50,000.00. That he paid the said duty on the car and it was transferred to his name. That the accused person told him to pay an amount of GHS40,000.00 for the cost of the car which he paid as the purchase price of the car; and later sold it to a Chinese man. PW6, the investigator herein Detective Inspector Mary Azure stationed at Tesano Police Station stated in her evidence that on 10th June 2023, the complainant came to the Tesano Police Station to report that her driver, Anderson Nana Abeka came for her Mitsubishi black 4x4 vehicle with registration number GE 2098-16 to an unknown destination and has since not returned home and all efforts made to trace his whereabout had proved futile. That the accused person was published in the media and on 19th September 2023, he was spotted and arrested at Oyibi and handed over to the police. That investigation caution was obtained from the accused person. The Republic v. Anderson Nana Abeka Page 4 of 19 PW6 repeated the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5 as what her investigations revealed. She added that the Chinese man who bought the said vehicle from PW5 was contacted on phone to bring the vehicle to assist investigation but failed; and that efforts are being made to get him. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its case. After the close of the case of prosecution, the Court examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to determine whether a prima facie case had been made by the prosecution to warrant the accused person to open his defence. The Court then made a finding that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case against the accused person; and he was called upon to enter into his defence. In view of the above, the Court found that the accused person had a case to answer. The court however explained the rights of the accused person to him that he can decide to remain silent, make unsworn statement from the dock or give evidence on oath. The court also reminded the accused person of the charge against him. EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSON In opening his defence, the accused person testified in open Court that his name is Anderson Nana Abeka, that he lives at North Kaneshie and is a Software Engineer. He confirmed as having worked for the complainant herein as her driver but denied stealing the complainant’s vehicle Mitsubishi Outlander. He testified among others that two weeks after quitting his job as the complainant’s driver, he moved to stay at Oyibi, The Republic v. Anderson Nana Abeka Page 5 of 19 assisting a friend of his with administrative duties. He then had an anonymous call that one of complainant’s car is missing, and that he is the main suspect so he should do well to return the car or he will be hunted until he is found. That exactly one month after he had the anonymous call around mid-July 2023, a lady called him with a private number claiming to be the School Teacher at Saint Lucia School and that she called to give him information that the said missing Mitsubishi Outlander has been sent to a garage around West Hills Mall, Weija. According to the accused he went from garage to garage from Weija Broadcasting claiming to be searching for a Mitsubishi Outlander to buy until he got to a garage at Weija SCC traffic light around late July, 2023 where he met Kwame claiming to be the security guard of the garage. That upon interaction with the said Kwame he saw a black Mitsubishi Outlander which was already registered with a year registration number 2023 with Richard. That he carefully examined the car both exterior and interior and was not 100% sure if the said car was actually the complainant’s car but the car had similar features as the complainant’s car such as the mileage of the car which was around 9,000 miles similar to complainant’s car’s mileage. That he later learnt that the car had been sold to a Chinese man. According to the accused person he informed his police friend called Nathaniel stationed in Takoradi about the issue but he did not report to the police when he saw the car that had similarities of the complainant’s car because his friend advised him not to report at that instance until the Chinese man brings the car. That when he was arrested, he led the Tesano Police to Richard’s garage where he was arrested and he also led them to Nana Yaw’s garage and he was also arrested. The accused person did not call witness, and closed his defence thereafter. LEGAL ISSUE The Republic v. Anderson Nana Abeka Page 6 of 19 The legal issue to be determined by this Court is whether or not the accused person did dishonestly appropriate a Black Mitsubishi Outlander 4x4 vehicle with registration number GE 2098-16 valued GHS480,000.00 the property of Cecilia Beausoleil. BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF A fundamental principle of our criminal justice system is that a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until he has pleaded guilty or proven guilty. It is trite learning that in criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. See sections 11(2), 13(1) and 15 of the Evidence Act, 1975, (NRCD 323). In the case of Gligah & Attiso v. The Republic [2010] SCGLR 870, the Supreme Court held as follows; “Under article 19 (2) (c) of the 1992 constitution, everyone charged with a criminal offence was presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. In other words, whenever an accused person was arraigned before any Court in any criminal trial, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the essential ingredients of the offence charged against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof was therefore on the prosecution and it was only after a prima facie case had been established by the prosecution that the accused person would be called upon to give his side of the story.” The burden on the accused person, when called upon to enter his defence, is to raise a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. The standard of proof for the defence is proof on a balance of probabilities. In the case of Osae v. The Republic [1980] GLR 446, the Court held that: The Republic v. Anderson Nana Abeka Page 7 of 19 “although it was settled law that where the law cast the onus of proof on the accused, the burden on him was lighter than on the prosecutor, and the standard of proof required was the balance of probability, if at any time of the trial, the accused voluntarily assumed the onus of proving his defence or some facts as happened in this case, the standard he had to discharge was on a balance of probabilities.” ANALYSIS The accused person has been charged with stealing under section 124 (1) of Act 29 which provides that: “A person who steals commits a second-degree felony.” Section 125 of Act 29 defines Stealing as follows: “A person steals if he dishonestly appropriates a thing of which he is not the owner”. In the case of Brobbey & Others v The Republic [1982-83] GLR 608-616, Twumasi J. stated as follows: “Three essential elements of the offence of stealing become obvious and they are: 1. That the person charged must have appropriated the thing allegedly stolen. 2. That the appropriation must have been dishonest. 3. That the person charged must not be the owner of the thing allegedly stolen.” Also, in the case of Ampah v. The Republic [1977] 2 GLR 171, Azu Crabbe C.J reiterated the elements of stealing as follows: “….to establish the offence the prosecution are required to prove only the three elements of: (i) dishonesty; (ii) appropriation; and (iii) property belonging to another person…” It is therefore clear from the definition that a person cannot be guilty of stealing unless he or she is proved to have appropriated a thing in the first place. In addition, the appropriation must have been dishonest that is, the person charged should have had the The Republic v. Anderson Nana Abeka Page 8 of 19 intention to be dishonest and acted in bad faith. From the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the accused person was employed to be the driver of the complainant (PW1) and he worked as a driver for two months. That on 10th June 2023, the accused person took one of the complainant’s vehicles being a Black Mitsubishi Outlander 4x4 with registration number GE 2098-16 and sold same. PW2 testified that on the said date she heard someone opened the gate so she woke up and went to check who that person was. She found out that it was the accused person. That the accused person saw her, greeted her and went inside. That she later found out that her mother's car key is not at the place they normally kept so she asked PW1 if she will be going somewhere but she said no. Then she informed her that her Mitsubishi Outlander car key is not there; and when she checked to see if the car was parked outside, it was not there. Exhibit ‘A’ is a video of the accused person entering the house and the kitchen of PW1 on the said date. From the evidence of PW3, the accused person came to him to ask about the process of selling a car. That the accused person later informed him that he has a Mitsubishi Outlander car that he wants to sell. So, the accused person brought the car to the garage and he informed him that his boss, Richard Quansah is not around so he should leave the car at the garage and come the next day to meet his boss. That the accused person came the next day and he, PW3 introduced the accused person to his boss as the person who wanted to sell his car. That his boss later told PW3 that he has found someone to buy the car. The Republic v. Anderson Nana Abeka Page 9 of 19 PW4 is the said Richard Quansah who testified that somewhere June 2023, he came to work and found out that a new car had been park at his garage. So, he asked his security (PW3) and he made him understand that the accused person said he was selling his Mitsubishi Outlander car. The accused person came to his garage the next day and PW3 introduced the accused person to him as the owner of the car. That the accused person made him understand that the said car was from Nigeria and no duty has been paid on it, so if he was interested, he should make payment of the duty and also pay for the cost of the car. PW4 further testified that he told the accused person that he does not like the said car and the accused person said he should find someone to buy the car. So PW4 called his friend Nana Yaw Kumi and he requested PW4 to send him pictures and chassis number of the said car which he did. That he informed the accused person that his friend was interested in the said car. So, the accused person drove PW4 to his friend's garage at Achimota and his friend Nana Yaw Kumi gave the accused person GHS20,000.00 in his presence on that same day. That after a week his friend paid an additional GHS20,000.00 to the accused person in his presence. The said friend of PW4, Nana Yaw Kumi also testified as PW5. His testimony was to the effect that he is a car dealer; and when PW4 called him that he has a new Mitsubishi Outlander car, he expressed interest in the said car and PW4 introduced the accused person to him as the owner of the said car. That the accused person drove the said car to his garage and they sent the car to customs for verification and they checked everything and informed him to pay a duty of GHS50,000.00 which he paid and the vehicle was transferred into his name. PW5 tendered documents of the said payment in evidence. PW5 further testified that the accused person told him to pay an amount of GHS40,000.00 for the cost of the car. So, he paid an initial amount of GHS20,000.00 to the accused person The Republic v. Anderson Nana Abeka Page 10 of 19 and later added the remaining GSH20,000.00 after he had finished paying the duty of an amount of GHS50,000.00. That he thereafter placed the car on a scale for sale and a Chinese man gave him his Nissan Rogue and an amount of GHS50,000.00 in exchange for the Mitsubishi Outlander car. The investigator herein testified as PW6 and gave evidence to the effect that after the complainant reported the case to the police station, the accused person was published in the media and on 19th September 2023, he was spotted and arrested at Oyibi and handed over to the police. Exhibit ‘J’ was tendered by PW6 as the caution statement of the accused person. According to PW6, further investigation disclosed that the accused person after stealing the vehicle sold it to one Nana Yaw Kumi, a car dealer at Tesano at a cost of GHS40,000.00 through one Richard Quansah. Richard Quansah and Nana Yaw Kumi were called as PW4 and PW5 respectively and they confirmed the case of the prosecution through their testimonies in court. The said caution statement of the accused person is in evidence as exhibit ‘J’ and for the avoidance of doubt, I reproduce same as follows: “I was employed through an agency to be a driver of one madam Cecilia Beausoleil a retired military nurse. I worked with them for 4 months. On the 10th day of June 2023, it was a bright morning. I reported to work around 6:30 a.m. for my normal daily routine. I took the car out for the daily routine checkup. I brought the car back to the house. After washing the car, I drove the car to my friend Richard for him to check something on the car and he suggested we can get a good price for the car. I made it known to him that the car is from Nigeria and suggested we take the number plate out and sell it. I agreed and Richard brought me to Mr. Nana as a buyer of the car and said he has to pay duty of the car, he later called Richard and he also called me to meet Mr. Nana for the money for the car he The Republic v. Anderson Nana Abeka Page 11 of 19 gave Richard GHS15,000 and Richard gave me GHS10,000 and said he will give me another balance of GHS15,000 in a week time. He then called me to meet Mr. Nana for another GHS15,000. I was not able to meet Richard so Richard went alone to take the money and sent me GHS10,000. I never heard from Richard until police arrested me and I explained everything to them.” A careful scrutiny of exhibit ‘J’ shows that same was taken in compliance with section 120 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). There was an independent witness in the person of William Odame Adjei in exhibit ‘J’. Akamba JSC in the case of Ekow Russel v. The Republic [2016] 102 GMJ 124 SC, stated as follows: “... A confession is an acknowledgment in express words, by the accused in a criminal charge, of the truth of the main fact charged or of some essential part of it. By its nature, such statement if voluntarily given by an accused person himself, offers the most reliable piece of evidence upon which to convict the accused. It is for this reason that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that what is given as a confession is voluntary and of the accused person’s own free will without fear, intimidation, coercion, promises or favours ...” (Emphasis mine) Given that the said confession statement was obtained from the accused person immediately he was arrested when issues concerning the instant case were fresh in his mind and also in the presence of an independent witness, I find the accused person’s denial of same in his evidence as an afterthought. In the case of Francis Atini v The Republic Criminal Appeal No. H2/17/2019 dated 23rd December 2020 CA, the Court of Appeal stated thus: The Republic v. Anderson Nana Abeka Page 12 of 19 “The evidence in the box was in conflict with the caution statement by the appellant. The evidence can best be described as an afterthought. It can be deduced that; the appellant told the truth when the matter was still fresh in his mind and had no time to manipulate same. His later evidence is an afterthought, and self-serving. It carries no weight and same is rejected. ...” In light of the above authority, this court will consequently reject the evidence of the accused offered in his testimony and under cross examination in denial of the confession he made as an afterthought and self-serving; and carries no evidential or probative value. This is because if indeed the statement was obtained from the accused person involuntarily, the accused person would have raised objection to same when the investigator sought to tender it, as same was earlier served on him by way of disclosure long before PW6 offered it in evidence. Further to that, the accused person did not cross examine PW6 on the said evidence. From the evidence of the accused person in this court being his defence, the accused person knew where the stolen vehicle was and went there to help search for it because there is no evidence to support his assertion that an unknown number called him to tell him of the whereabout of the stolen vehicle as he alleged. From the evidence on record, the reasonable question which the accused person’s defence could not give any satisfactory answer to, is, why did the accused person not immediately inform the police when he learnt of the whereabout of the stolen car if he did not know anything about it as he claimed, until he was arrested? The defence of the accused person is an afterthought, unacceptable and not reasonably probable having considered the entire evidence on record. The Republic v. Anderson Nana Abeka Page 13 of 19 From the evidence on record and the conduct of the accused person, he actually appropriated the said vehicle dishonestly and sold same to PW5 at the price of GHS40,000.00. Therefore, I find his defence as an afterthought. I find the accused person as not a credible witness and his story in his defence is also not credible and is unreasonably probable. This is because the accused person actually led police to PW4 and PW5 after he was arrested. PW3, PW4 and PW5 corroborated the case of the prosecution in their evidence before this court, to the effect that it is the accused person who brought the said vehicle to sell and eventually sold same to PW5. I have no basis to disbelieve the testimonies of these three witnesses in relation to their dealing with the accused person and the said Mitsubishi Outlander. The elements of stealing as discussed above in this judgment have been clearly established in the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the defence of the accused person could not raise any reasonable doubt as to his guilt. In relation to the ownership of the said car, section 123 of Act 29 makes provision on things in respect of which stealing, etc., can be committed. It provides as follows: “(1) Any of the crimes of stealing, fraudulent breach of trust, robbery, extortion, or defrauding by false pretence can be committed in respect of anything, whether living or dead, and whether fixed to the soil or to any building or fixture, or not so fixed, and whether the thing be a mineral or water, or gas, or electricity, or of any other nature, and whether the value thereof be intrinsic or for the purpose of evidence, or be of value only for a particular purpose to a particular person, and whether the value thereof do or do not amount to the value of the lowest denomination of coin; and any document shall be deemed to be of some value, whether it be complete or incomplete, and whether or not it satisfied, exhausted, or cancelled. The Republic v. Anderson Nana Abeka Page 14 of 19 (2) In any proceedings in respect of any of the crimes mentioned in subsection (1) it shall not be necessary to prove ownership or value.” (Emphasis mine) From the above, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove who actually owns the thing allegedly stolen or its value. All that is needed is for the prosecution to prove is that, the accused person is not the owner of the thing allegedly stolen and also prove that indeed the accused person appropriated something notwithstanding the value, of which he is not the owner. The evidence on record by the prosecution witnesses and by the accused person point to the fact that the accused person is not the owner of the said vehicle he admitted appropriating in exhibit ‘J’ and was confirmed by the prosecution witnesses, which appropriation I find as dishonest considering the manner the accused person appropriated same. On the element of appropriation, section 122 (2) of Act 29 defines Appropriation as follows: “An appropriation of a thing in any other case means any moving, taking, obtaining, carrying away, or dealing with a thing, with the intent that some person may be deprived of the benefit of his ownership, or of the benefit of his right or interest in the thing, or in its value or proceeds, or any part thereof”. It must be shown that the accused committed the act with the intention that some person may be deprived of the benefit of his ownership, or the benefit of his right or interest in the thing, or in its value or proceeds, or any part thereof. It is enough if the intention is to deprive some person temporarily of his benefit or right or interest in the thing appropriated. It also suffices if the appropriation is merely for a particular use – section The Republic v. Anderson Nana Abeka Page 15 of 19 122(3) of Act 29. Therefore, temporary use or appropriation satisfies the requirement as long as it is accompanied by the requisite proscribed mental element. From the evidence on record the accused person took the complainant’s vehicle without her consent whilst he worked for her. From the evidence on record, the elements of the offence of stealing have been established. Thus, the accused person is not the owner of the said vehicle he admitted appropriating in exhibit ‘J’ and was confirmed by PW3, PW4 and PW5, and the appropriation was dishonest. For the accused person to have been called upon to open his defence, it implies that a prima facie case was made out against him by the prosecution and it was the duty of the accused person to raise a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution to enable his acquittal. In the case of Commissioner of Police v. Isaac Antwi [1961] GLR 408-412, it was held that the accused person is not required to prove anything. All that is required of him is to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. This is further emphasized by sections 11(3) and 13(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975. All that the accused person needed to do was to raise a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. Unfortunately, the defence of the accused person could not raise any reasonable doubt as to his guilt; rather, it exposed him as he tried to justify his dishonest actions. In the case of State v. Owusu & Anor [1967] GLR 114, the court held that: “an extra-judicial confession by an accused that a crime had been committed by him did not necessarily absolve the prosecution of its duty to establish that a crime had actually been committed by the accused. It was desirable to have, outside the confession, some The Republic v. Anderson Nana Abeka Page 16 of 19 evidence, be it slight, of circumstances which made it probable that the confession was true. From the evidence adduced in the instant case, there was sufficient corroboration which confirmed that the confession of each accused was true.” In the instant case, apart from exhibit ‘J’ which contains the confession statement of the accused person, the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses confirm the accused person’s confession statement and further establish that the accused person took the said vehicle from the complainant’s residence without her consent and sold same, as analyzed above in this judgment. From the evidence on record the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused person stole the said vehicle from the complainant’s residence and sold it to PW5 who in turn sold it to a Chinese who has not been arrested yet therefore the vehicle has not been retrieved. Upon a careful consideration of the entire evidence on record and relying on the authorities above, I do find that the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused person is guilty of the offence of stealing the complainant’s Black Mitsubishi Outlander 4x4 vehicle with registration number GE 2098-16. This is because from the evidence of the accused person, I find that he does not have a reasonably probable defence to the charge against him and his evidence could not help him raise a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. I therefore find that the prosecution has been able to establish the ingredients of the offence of stealing beyond reasonable doubt. CONCLUSION The Republic v. Anderson Nana Abeka Page 17 of 19 For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that, indeed the accused person committed the offence of stealing. Consequently, I pronounce the accused person herein guilty of stealing and convict him accordingly. Court: Is there any plea in mitigation before sentence is passed? Accused: I did not take that vehicle and I have nothing to say. I only plead for mercy. Court: Is the accused person known to the police? Prosecutor: No. By Court: In sentencing the accused person, the Court takes into consideration his plea in mitigation and the fact that he is a first-time offender as well as his youthful age. In accordance with Article 14(6) of the 1992 Constitution, time spent in custody by the accused person is considered by the Court. However, considering the fact that the accused person abused his position as a driver of the complainant and stole her vehicle, and further considering the prevalence of the offence of stealing by employees from their employers within this jurisdiction, this Court is of the view that there is a need to impose a deterrent sentence under the circumstances of this case to send a strong signal to the accused person and other people with similar criminal tendency to curb the spate of stealing within the jurisdiction for employers to trust the youth and employ them as the youth are always complaining of unemployment in the system. I consequently sentence the accused person herein to serve a term of imprisonment of nine (9) years in hard labour. In addition, the accused shall pay a fine of five hundred (500) penalty units. In default of the fine, the accused person shall serve a prison term of twenty-four (24) months in hard labour. The Republic v. Anderson Nana Abeka Page 18 of 19 Restitution Order In accordance with section 147B of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), the accused person is ordered to refund the amount of GHS480,000 being the value of the Black Mitsubishi Outlander 4x4 vehicle with registration number GE 2098-16 he stole from the complainant’s residence, to the complainant. The complainant shall enforce this order through civil means. [SGD.] H/H AKOSUA A. ADJEPONG (MRS) (CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE) The Republic v. Anderson Nana Abeka Page 19 of 19