REPUBLIC VRS. IBRAHIM (D21/40/2025) [2024] GHACC 390 (29 November 2024)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT ‘10’ OF GHANA, ACCRA, HELD THIS FRIDAY 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE HER HONOUR EVELYN E. ASAMOAH (MRS). SUIT NO. D21/40/2025 REPUBLIC V MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MR. DERRICK ACKAH-NYAMIKE WITH MR. WATKINS ADAMAH, MS SELASIE KAVIANU AND MS DIONNE ACHIAMPONG – STATE ATTORNEYS MS GIFTY FRIMPONG HOLDING MR NII KPAKPO SAMOA ADDO’S BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON ================================================================ JUDGMENT ● Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim, accused of publishing false news to cause fear and alarm to the public - in the upcoming 2024 general elections and other offences, admitted that he made and recorded the statement but pointed out that he had no gun/firearm. The intelligence analyst described the statement, published via the internet/social media, as inflammable, capable of inciting/inspiring reactions, a recipe for chaos, and a breach of peace. “Without a firearm, machete or any physical weapon, you caused the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians." As one witness put it, the defendants' crime was to "spread petrol throughout the country little by little, so that one day [they] would be able to set fire to the whole country… Incitement is a hallmark of genocide, and it may be a prerequisite for it…. "It was impossible that hundreds of thousands of people should commit so many crimes unless they had been incited to do so and unless the crimes had been premeditated and 1 carefully organized… In its ruling in Akayesu's case, the tribunal did not limit the definition of incitement to what he did. It took pains to point out that "direct and public" incitement need not refer exclusively to a speaker haranguing his listeners in person. Incitement might be transmitted "through speeches, shouting or threats uttered in public places or at public gatherings, or through the sale or dissemination, offer for sale or display of written material or printed matter in public places or at public gatherings, or through the public display of placards or posters, or through any other means of audiovisual communication…” - Inciting Genocide, Pleading Free Speech: Susan Benesch Source: World Policy Journal, 2004, Vol. 21, pp. 62 - Duke University Press. ‘The camera has an interest in turning history into spectacle, but none in reversing the process. At best, the picture leaves a 'vague blur in the observer's mind; strong enough to send him into battle perhaps, but not to have him understand why he is going...’ - 'The State of the Language'- Denis Donoghue, Radio Talk. ● It is the case of the prosecution that the accused made statements via video recording and published same on the internet - that persons were being recruited into the Ghana Police Service to kill innocent citizens of Ghana during the upcoming 7th December 2024 General Elections- which statement is likely to cause fear and alarm to the public and disturb the peace. The accused threatened to shoot some public officers and used threatening, abusive, and insulting words against the said public officers and published same on social media with the intent to provoke a breach of the peace- via the internet. In the case of Cengiz and Another V. Turkey (Application No. 48226/10 and 14027/11) (December 2015), The European Court of Human Rights ruled that: “…The Internet has now become one of the principal means by which individuals exercise their right to freedom to receive and impart information and ideas… In Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey… the Constitutional Court… held as follows: In modern democracies, the Internet has acquired significant importance in terms of the exercise of fundamental rights and 2 freedoms, especially the freedom of expression. Social media constitute a transparent platform ... affording individuals the opportunity to participate in creating, publishing, and interpreting media content. Social media platforms are thus indispensable tools for the exercise of the right to freedom to express, share, and impart information and ideas. Accordingly, the State and its administrative authorities must display considerable sensitivity not only when regulating this area but also in their practice, since these platforms have become one of the most effective and widespread means of both imparting ideas and receiving information….” In the article: Internet as a Public Space for Freedom of Expression: Myth or Reality (2017) - Sara Abbasi stated: “Internet inevitably has given manifold dimensions to the concept of available spaces for citizens to express free speech. It is rightly expressed by many as ‘public space of 21st century’…. Rightly so, a public space is marked as the cornerstone of any democracy and its health is the key to enlivened public discourse … cyberspace fits public sphere criteria in all respects. From human rights law perspective, the freedom of expression is built on the presumption that the public sphere is managed, or at least supervised, by the state. ….Failing to expand human rights protections for public speech to online spaces compromises any society’s capacity for participatory democracy and brings the legitimacy of government institutions into question. It could be said that in terms of public participation, speech on internet is more open than other mediums including newspapers and television…. The right to freedom of expression is provided for in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights Article 19, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 19, the American Convention on Human Rights Article 13, The African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights Article 9, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights 3 and Fundamental Freedoms Article 10. It is the need of hour that this fundamental guarantee should effectively be applied and made use of in the realm of cyberspace as well…” ● The accused person was charged with the following offences: • Publication of false news contrary to section 208 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act 1960- Act 29. • Threat of harm contrary to section 74 of Act 29. • Offensive conduct conducive to breach of peace contrary to section 207 of Act 29. ● The facts presented by the prosecution are as follows: The accused person, Mohammed Ibrahim, claims to be a farmer and identifies himself as the Leader of a revolutionary Group with the Twi name “Kanawu" which translates to or means "Speak and Die". On 3rd September 2024, the Ghana Police Service's attention was drawn to a video recording of the accused person published on that fateful day on Social Media Platforms, Facebook, X, and TikTok. In the video, the accused person was wearing a red military beret and he stated that the Police Service in the Ashanti Region, under the direction of the Inspector- General of Police, Dr. George Akufo Dampare, and the Minister for the Interior, Hon. Henry Quartey, was recruiting fake police personnel to kill citizens of Ghana during the upcoming 7th December 2024 General Elections. The accused person further stated that he and his cohorts knew where the Hon. Minister lived and that at the outbreak of war in Ghana, they would shoot him. The accused further threatened to unleash violence during the Elections. On 10th September 2024, the Police declared the accused wanted, leading to his arrest. Upon a search conducted at his residence at Sowutuom, the police retrieved the red beret he used in the viral video. A statement was taken from him and he admitted recording the video. 4 ● Prosecution bore the legal burden to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the case of Kweku Quaye Alias Togbe V. The Republic Criminal Appeal No. J3/08/2020 dated 28th July 2021, Prof. Mensa-Bonsu (Mrs.) JSC stated: “It is trite law that the burden of proof in criminal cases rests on the prosecution and that the standard is “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. Section 11(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) states that “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 a fact beyond a reasonable doubt.” ● The first prosecution witness, a police detective, testified that on 3rd September 2024, the Ghana Police Service obtained intelligence about the case. He was part of a team of investigators appointed to investigate the viral video and identify and arrest its author. Through an informant and intelligence gathering, they identified the accused and located his house. On 11th September 2024, at about 8:45 am, they went to the accused person’s house but he was not there. A lady who identified herself as his wife gave them access to conduct a search. The red beret the accused wore in the video was retrieved from the room. On 11th September 2023, the accused, accompanied by his counsel surrendered himself to the police. ● The second prosecution witness, an expert- -Intelligence Analyst, in his witness statement asserted that the entire statement of the accused person in the video was reckless, dangerous, and a threat to public peace and security. The accused person's statement that the IGP and the Interior Minister were recruiting fake persons in the Ashanti region to kill citizens during the upcoming general elections has the potential to undermine the public confidence in the Ghana Police Service in the upcoming December general elections, which can cause chaos, violent clashes and breach the peace. 5 ●Publication of False News Section 208(1) of Act 29 states: A person who publishes or reproduces a statement, rumour or report which is likely to cause fear and alarm to the public or to disturb the public peace knowing or having reason to believe that the statement, rumour or report is false commits a misdemeanour. 208(2)- It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (1) that the person charged did not know or did not have reason to believe that the statement, rumour or report was false, unless it is proved that, prior to the publication, that person took reasonable measures to verify the accuracy of the statement, rumour or report. In the case of The Republic Vs. Joana Krah Akos [2022] DLHC11652-Suit No: E9/25/21 dated 7th June 2022 High Court - the court outlined the ingredients of the offence of publication of false news as follows: “The elements of the offence are: (a) Publication or reproduction of report or statement or rumor (b) Falsity of the report, statement or rumor (c) Knowledge of the falsity of or reasonable belief in the falsity of the rumor, report or statement (d) Likelihood that the statement, rumor or report will cause fear or alarm to the public or disturb the public peace. The position of the Ghanaian law on proof of intent is explained in the case ADEKURA v. THE REPUBLIC [1984-86] 2 GLR 345, 347 where the Court of Appeal per Osei-Hwere JA (as he then was) held: “ . A man who deliberately shut his eyes to that obvious truth could not in law be heard to say that he believed his act would probably not cause or contribute to cause the event, or that he did not intend to cause or contribute to it within the 6 meaning of section 11 (3) of Act 29. The proviso in section 11 (3), which inured to exculpate an accused from any criminal intention was predicated on the fact that he had used reasonable caution and observation…” … there is no gainsaying that Appellant shut her eyes to the obvious consequence of her act – that her act would … cause fear and alarm in the society. She could not be heard to say that her act would not cause the resultant event or she had no intention to cause the event…” ● The Investigator, the third prosecution witness, contended that the accused falsely stated that the Police Service in the Ashanti region, under the direction of the IGP and the Minister for the Interior, was recruiting fake police personnel to kill citizens of Ghana during the upcoming December 2024 General Elections. The video/ publication was tendered in evidence (Exhibit E). The accused did not deny that he made the statements. However, he stated that his intention was not to incite or facilitate chaos. The Intelligence Analyst, during cross-examination, indicated that ‘ in the video itself the accused stated the development and the claims that the police was recruiting fake persons has compromised his confidence in the Ghana police and that statement if perpetuated, holds the potential to cause same among all who would hear and believe and in the society where the police rely on the corporation with the public to ensure their safety that compromised trust is a recipe for chaos and breach of peace… such narratives would compromise the trust needed for our own public safety…’ ● During cross-examination, the accused reiterated his statement. He was asked: ‘I put it to you that your statement that persons were being recruited into the Police service in the Ashanti region to kill citizens of Ghana during the upcoming 7th December 2024 general elections is false. He answered: “It is not false. I picked up that information from the Minority caucus of Parliament and the Regional Chairman of the Ashanti Region in the person of Nana Kwesi…. I said that the recruitment was unlawful and it was party members who were being recruited into the service to shoot and kill us during elections.” 7 The accused repetitively indicated that the publication that people were being recruited to kill innocent Ghanaians during the upcoming general election was accurate. However, he failed to prove his assertion. There is no evidence on record that people have been recruited by the Ghana Police Service to kill Ghanaians in the upcoming 2024 election. ● Fear and Alarm -War, bullets, shoot, Kill, Warning, Revolution The accused in his caution statement (Exhibit D) also admitted that he made statements on the day of the incident. However, he referred to the statement as a political statement. He used words such as bullets, gun, shoot, and war. He stated: “… On 3/9/24, I attended the National Democratic Congress (NDC) meeting at Sowutwom… I am the branch organizer and also the ward organizer. After the meeting and at about 5:30 pm, one Hawa also an NDC party member in Kumasi sent me a video of our Ashanti regional NDC chairman in which there was an alleged recruitment of New Patriotic Party supporters into the Ghana Police Service. I became peeved and also made an audio-visual of myself. I made some political statements. I only cautioned the IGP and the interior minister… to ensure that there was no war in Ghana or they will be touched with bullets. I do not own a gun…” In the video (Exhibit F) the accused was wearing a red beret (Exhibit C) and he made the following statement (Exhibit H): “… I am warning you, strong warning, you are big but when fighting breaks out, we shall shoot you in the stomach, pam, pam and kill you!... They try to fake recruit in the police service for December 7, that people to come to shoot innocent people, is that not so… That they are recruiting the fake people, you and Interior Minister, Henry Quartey, I swear by God! I swear by God, if this happens, we will kill you live.... we know your house at Alajo, oh! We are telling them to get steady! Ghana does not belong to someone’s father. I swear 8 for my father's dead body! NDC is the revolution party and we said we wanted democracy and so we formed it, but if now they want to show us, this 2024 is all did- be – die… This 2024, whoever will fool, fire is come to this country! I swear by Allah! If you like come and arrest me... Revolution, revolution, revolution! Power!” He asserted that he made the publication during an NDC organizers meeting. In the publication, he described himself as a revolutionary leader. He pointed out that he is an organizer of the NDC party. He made the statement aggressively, directly inciting violence. ● Direct and Public Incitement to Violence The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)- Appeal Chamber in the case of Feidinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Hassan Ngeze V. The Prosecutor - Case No. ICTR-99-52-A – (Rwanda Media Case) ruled that: “… that there is a difference between hate speech in general (or inciting discrimination or violence) and direct and public incitement to commit genocide. Direct incitement to commit genocide assumes that the speech is a direct appeal to commit an act referred to in Article 2(2) of the Statute; it has to be more than a mere vague or indirect suggestion … In most cases, direct and public incitement to commit genocide can be preceded or accompanied by hate speech, but only direct and public incitement to commit genocide is prohibited under Article 2(3)(c) of the Statute… The case is apt to be portrayed as a titanic struggle between the right to freedom of expression and abuse of that right. That can be said, but only subject to this: No margin of delicate appreciation is involved. The case is one of simple criminality. The appellants knew what they were doing and why they were doing it. They were consciously, deliberately, and determinedly using the media to perpetuate direct and public incitement to commit 9 genocide. The power of the media to create and destroy fundamental human values comes with great responsibility…” Adusei II V. The Republic (1975) 2GLR 225, the court held: “In order to ground conviction under section 208 of Act 29, the publication must be made with intent to cause or likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public whereby any person might be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility. The word "publish" within the meaning of the section meant to make publicly or generally known, and it was the body of the public to whom the communication must be made…” ● In this case, the accused published the statement via social media- which went viral. During cross-examination, he averred that he made the statement during NDC organizers meeting in the presence of about 20 - 50 organizers. In the video, he directly incited people to commit violence and called on NDC members to stand-up. Prosecution witnesses asserted that the video had gone viral on social media platforms. PW3 further stated that the accused threatened to unleash violence during the election and that on 9th September 2024, the police service on its Facebook page declared him wanted (Exhibit B1). The intelligence analyst stated that the statement could embolden radicals and normalize violence perpetuated against law enforcement personnel, which can cause a breach of peace and that the accused declaration of readiness to use violence during the election can alarm the public, intimidate voters, and cause riots at polling stations. As indicated, per 208(2) of Act 29, it is not a defence that the person charged did not know or did not have reason to believe that the statement, rumour, or report was false unless it is proved that, prior to the publication, that person took reasonable measures to verify the accuracy of the statement, rumour, or report. The accused published false 10 statements to the general public with intent to cause fear, alarm, and disturb public peace. He is hereby convicted of count 1. Threat of Harm- Shoot/ Kill Section 74 of Act 29 states: A person who threatens any other person with unlawful harm, with intent to put that person in fear of unlawful harm commits a misdemeanor. Prosecution witnesses testified that the accused threatened the Minister for the Interior that he would shoot him and issued threats with intent to put the Minister in fear of unlawful harm. The accused contended that the purpose of his video was to caution the authorities. Section 17 of Act 29 states: Meaning and use of threats 17(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, “threat” means (a) a threat of criminal force or harm 17(3) It is immaterial whether the matter of the threat will be executed by the person using the threat, or against or in relation to the person to whom the threat is used, or by, or against, or in relation to any other person. 17(4) It is immaterial whether a threat or offer is conveyed to a person by words, or by writing, or in any other manner, and whether it is conveyed directly, or through any other person or in any other manner. In Patterson Ahenkang and Others V. The Republic [2014] DLCA4949, the Court ruled: “… the threat must be criminal, that is in respect of an unlawful harm. The means by which the threat is conveyed is immaterial, and it could be conveyed directly or indirectly. Indeed, words are sufficient, provided the ingredients of the offence are present. There must be proved, the intention on the part of the threatener/accused to put the other person in fear of death, that is in the fear of being killed. The intention must be real or wicked. Whether 11 the victim of the threat was actually put in fear of death is immaterial. What matters is the intention to put the other person in fear of death – see Behome v. The Republic [1979] GLR 112…” In this case, the accused in the video stated: “Henry Quartey, the Interior Minister, be careful!!! I am warning, you are big but when fighting breaks out, we shall shoot you in the stomach, pam, pam and kill you… Henry Quartey, I swear by God! I swear by God, if this happens, we will kill you live. We know you house at Alajo oh…” The accused, in an aggressive manner, in his ‘revolutionary/military’ beret, threatened to harm the minister and public officials and further mentioned the Minister’s place of residence- the intent was to put the Minister in fear of unlawful harm. He is hereby convicted of count 2. Breach of Peace Section 207 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) states: A person who in a public place or at a public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or by which a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned commits a misdemeanour. In the case of Gaba V. The Republic (1984-86) 1GLR 694, the Court held: In considering the meaning of words “with intent to provoke a breach or whereby a breach of peace is likely to be occasioned” In Act 29, section 207, the test of the reasonable man was inapplicable to the person or person or persons likely to be provoked. A speaker who used threatening, abusive or insulting words, had to take his audience as he found it and, if the works spoken to that audience were likely to provoke a breach of the peace… The essential ingredient of the offence of offensive conduct conducive to breaches of the peace under section 207 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29) was that the offence must be committed in a public place. It might happen in a building but then it must 12 be a building to which the public had access. Under the section no offence would be committed by a person whose activities such as in the instant case, took place in a private house to which the public had no right of access or licence thereto.” ●Section 1 of the Criminal and other offences (Procedure Act, 1960 (Act 30) states: Public place includes a public way and a building, place, or conveyance to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access, without a condition of making a payment, or on condition of making a payment, and a building or place which is used for a public or religious meeting or assembly, or as an open Court; and acts are done “publicly” (b) if they are done in a place, which is not a public place, but are likely to be seen by a person in a public place; “The Internet has long been identified as an information agora … Internet is both ubiquitous and personal. This universal connectivity of the Internet is its potential for everyone and in everywhere. Yet the very nature of its ubiquity may also impinge on a variety of individual or organizational rights, thus hindering its overall usefulness. … the Internet that connects people, machines, and information resources is at once public and private. This is perhaps one of the most salient characteristics of the Internet - everyone works and lives in the same space, shares the same resources with the rest of the community and yet each can carve out a part of the space and claim it to be his/her own. … Conversely, we put proprietary information … on the net for public use. … …. An Internet space is by definition, globally interconnected: The Internet as Public Space: Concepts, Issues, and Implications in Public Policy (2000) ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society. 13 The investigator averred that an informant sent the video recording to the police. In the video, the accused in a red military-like beret identified himself as the leader of a revolutionary group. He added that the investigations established that the accused recorded the video after an NDC meeting and published it on social media. ● In his witness statement, the accused stated that he innocently recorded the video addressing a rumor that he had heard regarding certain occurrences. He contended that the video was motivated by a press conference held by the NDC, the Ashanti regional chairman, and the NDC minority in Parliament, raising concerns about purported ongoing fake recruitment in the Ashanti region. The purpose of the video was to caution the authorities not to use threats, and he only insinuated that if the said leaders were not diligent in their work, it would result in any form of mayhem during the upcoming elections. He indicated that the video was not posted on X, Facebook, Instagram, or TikTok. That the video was not intended for public dissemination. He further pointed out that he never intended to pose a threat of harm, cause fear and alarm to the public, or disrupt the peace of the nation. In the case of Abu Ramadan V. Electoral Commission, The Attorney General - In Re: The Owner of The Station – Montie FM and Three Others- Civil Motion No: J8/108/2016 -the Supreme Court ruled: “… they entered the studio on the days in question, they held nothing back and could not be bothered by any codes of ethics, decency and decorum. They completely forgot that they were on planet Earth in a country called Ghana with laws, regulations and customary rules of etiquette and decorum. They were totally reckless and insensitive in their comments ...” In the case of Leroy V. France - European Court of Human Rights -681 /2.10.2008- the Court held: “…This interference was prescribed by French law and pursued several legitimate aims, having regard to the sensitive nature of the fight against terrorism, namely the 14 maintenance of public safety and the prevention of disorder and crime. It remained to be determined whether this interference was “necessary in a democratic society” … In addition, the impact of such a message in a politically sensitive region, namely the Basque Country, was not to be overlooked; the weekly newspaper’s limited circulation notwithstanding, the Court noted that the drawing’s publication had provoked a certain public reaction, capable of stirring up violence and demonstrating a plausible impact on public order in the region.” In the video, the accused stated, “… this 2024 is all die be die! IGP, be careful! Jean Mansah and Bossman Asare, we know they are NPP members, but they should be steady! This 2024, whoever will fool, fire is come to this country! I swear by Allah! If you like, come and arrest me… IGP, be very, very, very careful… you know the people that killed JB Danquah … because you led to recruit the fake police to come and kill the innocent people in this country! I swear, is never happen! NDC, we stood up.” ● He used threatening, insulting, and abusive - against public officers. The statement was made to the general public as well as organizers of the NDC party with intent to provoke a breach of the peace. The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is hereby convicted of the offences. Pre – Sentence Hearing ● Plea in Mitigation Counsel for the accused – In the case of Kwashie V. The Republic (1971)1GLR 488) - the court listed some factors of punishment to be considered, which include mitigating or affricating factors. The accused is a person of good character who has faithfully served in leadership for the past 8 years in the Sowutuom branch of the NDC. Throughout these 15 years, he has not been one to cause any mayhem or chaos. The accused is also a first-time offender with no criminal record who has utterly regretted his actions, which have warranted this instant matter. Lastly, the accused is also a family man who is saddled with the responsibility of taking care of his wife and children as well as the family of his brother, who recently passed in Navorongo, being the only surviving child of his parents. We pray that this court temper justice with mercy. Prosecution – We think that the aggravating factors exceed the mitigating factors in this case. In mitigation, the accused was in lawful custody for about a month from his arrest on 11th September 2024 until he was able to execute his bail. Information reaching the prosecution is that the accused is not known and that this is a first brush with the law. His wife has also testified to his family circumstances. Nonetheless, the nature of the accusation against the convict is very serious, bearing in mind the potential consequences it bore on the peace and stability of Ghana primarily because of the upcoming general election. The evidence before the court is that the accused is a branch organizer of the largest opposition party in Ghana, meaning his utterances go far and carry weight, and in this case, they went further on social media. The court's time has been wasted in spite of all the glaring evidence in the case – we were put through a full trial, and indeed, there were several attempts on the account of the convict to delay the trial by way of unmeritorious application and absenteeism. Given the entire circumstance of the case, the mitigation and aggravating factors, we are of the view that a deterrent custodial sentence is important to deter like-minded persons from acting in such a manner. SENTENCE In the case of Ghana Independent Broadcasters - Plaintiff Association V. The Attorney General, National Media Commission - Suit No. J1/4/2016 30th November 2016- Justice Benin JSC (as he then was) stated: 16 “… the country should not transition from a culture of silence, which tends to inhibit the citizenry from participation in governance, to a culture of media impunity that might bring about disorder. Thus, a careful balance was required- because a culture of impunity by the media, which has the potential to breed chaos and insult public decency and morality, was certainly not an option Mr. Daniel Koranteng in his book. Criminal Prosecution in Ghana- Practice and Procedure – pages 593 – 596 stated: “…It is an important principle of sentencing that the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence… An analysis of the gravity of the offence requires an understanding of both the character of the offender’s actions and the consequences of those action… In Adu v. Boahene v. The Republic ((1972) 1GLR 70) Where the court finds an offence to be very grave, it must not only impose a punitive sentence, but also a deterrent or exemplary one so as to indicate the disapproval of society of that offence. Once the court decided to impose a deterrent sentence, the good character of the accused is irrelevant… In imposing sentence, the court must consider the prevalence of the crime within the particular locality where the offence took place or the country in general … In determining a sentence, it is proper for the court to consider, on the one hand, the social or official position of the offender and, on the other, that the offence may be aggravated by reason of such position. Certain positions carry high responsibilities, and abuse of such positions must carry high punishment…” In this case, the accused is a political party organizer. The Prosecutor indicated that he is a “branch organizer of the largest opposition party in Ghana, meaning his utterances go far and carry weight...” The court takes into consideration the prevalence of such crimes in the jurisdiction – in this election year, the fact that the accused has not shown any 17 remorse - he kept repeating his published statement and on account of threatening the peace and stability of the country- which is very grave. Custodial sentences will be imposed to deter like-minded organizers of political parties and party leaders in general from perpetrating such crimes. The accused is hereby sentenced as follows: Count 1 - 3 Years with hard labour Count 2 - 4 Years with hard labour Count 3 - 3 Years with hard labour Sentence to run concurrently. (SGD) H/H EVELYN E. ASAMOAH (MRS) CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE 18