REPUBLIC VRS. UGWE (D21/040/24) [2024] GHACC 381 (19 September 2024)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT ACHIMOTA, ACCRA ON THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE HER HONOUR AKOSUA ANOKYEWAA ADJEPONG (MRS.), CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE CASE NO.: D21/040/24 THE REPUBLIC VRS FAVOUR UGWE ACCUSED PERSON PRESENT A.S.P. ISAAC BABAYI WITH SGT. JONAS WORKU FOR THE REPUBLIC PRESENT NKRABEAH EFFAH-DARTEY, ESQ. FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON ABSENT JUDGMENT THE CHARGE The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 1 of 21 The accused person herein was arraigned before this court charged with the offence of Human Trafficking, contrary to section 2(1) & (2) of the Human Trafficking Act, 2005 (Act 694) as amended by the Human Trafficking Act, 2009 (Act 784) on a charge sheet filed on 27th November 2023. THE PLEA The accused person pleaded not guilty after the charge had been read to her. FACTS The brief facts of the case as presented by the prosecution are that the complainant in this case is Ibrahim Yahaya an electrical engineer and resident at Madina UN whiles the accused person is a Nigerian residing at Olonka behind Madina Redco Flat. The victim is a 19-year-old Chadian. On 10/11/2023, the complainant and the victim called at the Anti- Human Trafficking Unit, CID Headquarters and the former reported that on 05/11/2023, he met the victim who was stranded around Madina in Accra. That during interview, the victim indicated to him that she was recruited and transported from Nigeria to Ghana by one Favour, a Nigerian to work in a restaurant but ended up forcing her into prostitution. On 21/11/2023, the victim was accompanied by a team of personnel from the Unit headed by the Unit Station Officer to Madina in search of the accused. The victim happened to locate Olonka and Red light a slum housing a large group of ladies suspected to be sex workers behind the Madina Redco Flats and the victim pointed at the accused person as the trafficker and she was subsequently arrested by Police at her hide out. During investigation, the accused admitted having recruited victim from Abuja-Nigeria with assistance from a man called King also a Nigerian and paid for victim’s transportation from Nigeria to Ghana. Further investigation revealed that accused person received the The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 2 of 21 victim at Circle-Accra and later took her to Olonka, her abode. The accused person then provided victim with dresses, condoms and gel for lubrication during victim's sexual intercourse with men for a fee which the accused person admitted receiving and recording same. After investigation, accused person was charged with the offence as stated on the charge sheet. EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES PW1 who is also the victim in this case testified that her name is Christiana Rosa and she comes from Chad. That she was staying with her junior mother called Mary in Chad after she lost both father and mother. That through discussions with her cousin called Princess who was living in Nigeria, she told her that she could assist her get a job in Nigeria and that she should come there. PW1 continued that on 28th August 2023, she travelled from Chad to join Princess in Nigeria. That in about two weeks later, Princess informed her that she was relocating to Benin together with her boyfriend and suggested that she stays back in Nigeria whilst she goes with the boyfriend. That she stayed in Nigeria for months without hearing from the said cousin even though she said she would send money to her to start some small business after she arrived in Benin. That the little money she gave her got finished so, she decided to go out and search for a job to do; and met a certain man and after discussing her predicament with him, he offered to assist her. That the said man told her that he has a sister in Ghana who could provide her with a job, and convinced her to accept as she was left with no option. That the said man, made her speak with the said sister called Favour and she also assured her of providing her with a good job in a restaurant when she gets to Ghana. PW1 further testified that in the month of October 2023, she left Nigeria to meet Favour in Ghana. That Favour met and picked her up and The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 3 of 21 to her surprise she sent her to a brothel where there are a lot of young girls practicing prostitution. According to PW1, at the brothel she told her that she was coming to work for her as a prostitute. That Favour gave her short dresses, condoms and sex lubricant to use it to have sex with men who would come to her. That she refused but Favour forced her into it and made her have sex with men for money of which Favour collected whatever money was paid to her. That she had sex with a minimum of four men a day who paid her GHS20.00 and GHS30.00. That after sex, Favour would come and pour the sperm of the men from the condom they used into a cup and kept it and told her never to mention that to anybody. PW1 further testified that she confronted her and she told her she could not continue with the prostitution job but she refused to hear her out. That she always threatened her that she will kill her, and also beat her anytime she refused to have sex and asked her never to make any attempt of running away. PW1 concluded that on Sunday 5th November 2023, she was able to escape from the brothel in Madina and sought for assistance from people until she met a certain man who offered her accommodation and later brought her to the Police CID Headquarters. She tendered her statement given to the police as exhibit ‘A’. That Favour also gave her a street name as Rejoyce. PW2, the investigator herein No. 44909 D/Sgt. Lord Kwame Blankson also testified that he is stationed at Anti-Human Trafficking Unit, CID Headquarters, Accra. That on 10/11/2023, the complainant and the victim called at the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit, CID Headquarters and the former reported that on 05/11/2023, he met the victim who was stranded around Madina in Accra. That during interview, the victim indicated to him that she was recruited and transported from Nigeria to Ghana by one Favour who is The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 4 of 21 a Nigerian to work in a restaurant but ended up being forced into prostitution. That a witness statement was submitted by complainant, Ibrahim Yahaya and he stated that he rescued the victim, Christiana Rosa after she narrated to him that she was forced into prostitution to have sexual intercourse with four men. PW2 continued that a witness statement was also collected from victim, Christiana Rosa and she stated that Favour, the accused person forced her into prostitution and made her to have sex with men for money of which accused person collected the money. That during investigations, the victim took police to Madina in search of accused person and several attempts were made to locate her whereabouts but to no avail because the victim was kept in the slum and never allowed to move freely. That on 22/11/2023, he was assigned to take over the case so, he and the victim together with a team of personnel from his Unit reported and left for Madina in search of the accused person from her hideout and as usual, the victim took police all over Madina until she finally located Olonka, a slum opposite red light which houses a lot of young ladies mostly Nigerians suspected to be sex workers. That the victim led Police to arrest accused person and she was brought to the Unit for investigations. That at the Unit the accused person was interrogated by his Unit's second-in command in his presence and other two personnel from his Unit. That the accused admitted working as a prostitute at Olonka, Madina. That the accused was cautioned on the offence of Human Trafficking and she again admitted working as a prostitute and recruiting victim, Christiana Rosa also known as Rejoice through one King, a Nigerian. That she further sent an amount of GHS2,500.00 to King as transport fare to transport the victim from Nigeria to Ghana. That, she again admitted picking the victim at Circle, Accra and keeping her at Olonka, Madina. That, she provided the victim with dresses, condoms and condom gel for lubrication during sexual intercourse with men. That, she charged the victim to pay a total amount of GHS5,000.00 but she collected only an amount of The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 5 of 21 GHS1,000 plus and recorded same. PW2 tendered the caution statement and charged statement of the accused in evidence as exhibits ‘B’ and ‘C’ respectively. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its case. After the close of the case of the prosecution, the Court examined the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses to make a determination whether a prima facie case had been made out by the prosecution to warrant the accused person to open her defence. The Court subsequently gave a ruling that a prima facie case had been made and the duty of the accused person was to raise a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. In view of that the accused person was called upon to enter into her defence, after the options available to her were explained to her. The court also reminded the accused person of the charge against her. EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSON In opening her defence, the accused person testified in open Court that her name is Igwe Lovette Nnenna Favour. That she stays at P&T, Adenta and sells clothes. That she knows PW1 (Christiana Rosa) and PW2 (investigator) but she does not know the complainant. That she is not the one who brought Christiana to Ghana and she did not force Christiana into any prostitution. According to the accused person, the evidence she has on her phone, her CID said she should delete everything because the girl Chidema that brought Christiana to Ghana sent her a video where she was discussing with Christiana and said Christiana is coming to Ghana so she should help her to pick Christiana. So, she showed her CID the video the girl sent to her so that he will be aware that she is not the one who brought Christiana to Ghana, and her CID said she should delete the video. The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 6 of 21 The accused person called two witnesses as DW1 and DW2. DW1 gave her name as Happiness Ogechukwu and testified that she stays and sells provisions at Madina. That she knows the accused person at Madina as a cloth seller, and does not know the prosecution witnesses. DW1 told that court that she is in court because of her friend Favour; but she does not know anything about the human trafficking case. That the business that she knows is the clothes she has been selling. DW2, Anekwe Joseph Ikenna also testified that he lives at Ashongman Estate and sells food items in front of his house. That he knows the accused person from Madina as someone that sells clothes and he bought clothes from her twice. That he does not know the prosecution witnesses and does not know anything about the charge against the accused person because he does not live with her so if she does such business of human trafficking he does not know. The accused thereafter closed her defence. LEGAL ISSUE The legal issue to be determined is whether or not the accused person herein did recruit and transport victim Christiana Rosa a.k.a. Rejoyce from Nigeria to Ghana under the pretext of securing her a job in a restaurant but ended up forcing her into prostitution. BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF The fundamental rule in all criminal proceedings is that the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused person is on the prosecution and the standard of proof required by the prosecution should be proof beyond reasonable doubt. This being a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 7 of 21 Under Article 19(2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution, a person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty or has pleaded guilty. This requirement is provided in sections 11, 13 and 15 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). In the case of Asante (No.1) v. The Republic (No.1) [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 132 at 143 per Pwamang JSC, it was held that: “Our law is that when a person is charged with a criminal offence it shall be the duty of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, meaning the prosecution has a burden to lead sufficient admissible evidence such that on an assessment of the totality of the evidence adduced in Court, including that led by the accused person, the Court would believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence has been committed and that it was the accused person who committed it. Apart from specific cases of strict liability offences, the general rule is that throughout a criminal trial the burden of proving the guilt of the accused person remains with the prosecution. Therefore, though the accused person may testify and call witnesses to explain his side of the case where at the close of the case of the prosecution a prima facie case is made against him, he is generally not required by law to prove anything. He is only to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as to his commission of the offence and his complicity in it except where he relies on a statutory or special defence.” Also, in the case of Republic v. Adu-Boahen & Another [1993-94] 2 GLR 324-342, per Kpegah JSC, the Supreme Court held that: “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... When a plea of not guilty is voluntarily entered by an accused or is entered for him by the trial court, the The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 8 of 21 prosecution assumes the burden to prove, by admissible and credible evidence, every ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt”. ANALYSIS The accused person has been charged with the offence of Human Trafficking, contrary to section 2(1) & (2) of the Human Trafficking Act, 2005 (Act 694) as amended by the Human Trafficking Act, 2009 (Act 784) Section 2 on prohibition of trafficking provides as follows: “(1) A person shall not traffic another person within the meaning of section 1 or act as an intermediary for the trafficking of a person. (2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than five years.” The meaning of human trafficking has been provided under section 1 subsections 1 and 2 of Act 694 as amended by Act 784 as follows: “(1) Human trafficking means the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring, trading or receipt of persons within and across national borders by (a) the use of threats, force or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, the abuse of power or exploitation of vulnerability, or (b) giving or receiving payments and benefits to achieve consent. (2) Exploitation shall include at the minimum, induced prostitution and other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.” The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 9 of 21 From the above, the prosecution has the onus to show that the accused person trafficked the victim herein or acted as intermediary and obtained the interest and consent of the victim herein (PW1) through threats, force, deception, coercion, abuse of power or exploitation of PW1’s vulnerability and thus recruited, transported and transferred her from Nigeria to Ghana. In all these, the purpose or motivation was to exploit the victim to the personal benefit or gain of the accused person. From on the evidence on record; that is, the evidence of the victim (PW1), the investigator (PW2) as well as the evidence of the accused person, the complainant in this case is one Ibrahim Yahaya. According to PW1 she travelled from Chad to join her cousin in Nigeria but after some months she decided to search for a job to do because her cousin was no more with her to support her. That she met a certain man and after discussing her predicament with him, he offered to assist her. From the testimony of PW1, the said man, made her speak with his sister called Favour who is the accused herein and Favour also assured her of providing her with a good job in a restaurant when she gets to Ghana. Upon this assurance, PW1 left Nigeria to meet Favour in Ghana where Favour met and picked her up and to her surprise, she sent her to a brothel where there are a lot of young girls practicing prostitution. That the accused told her that she was coming to work for her as a prostitute and gave her short dresses, condoms and sex lubricant to use it to have sex with men who would come to her. According to PW1 she refused but the accused person forced her into it and made her have sex with men for money of which the accused collected whatever money was paid to her. That she had sex with a minimum of four men a day who paid her GHS20.00 and GHS30.00. That when she told the accused that she cannot continue with the prostitution job, she always threatened her that she will kill her, and also beat her anytime she refused to have sex and asked her never to make any attempt of running away. However, she was able to escape from the brothel in Madina The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 10 of 21 and sought for assistance from people until she met a certain man who offered her accommodation and later brought her to the Police CID Headquarters. The accused person denied these assertions by PW1, however PW1 vehemently maintained under cross examination that the accused person spoke to her and deceived her to come to Ghana that she will find a job in a restaurant for her but rather forced her into prostitution when she arrived in Ghana and the accused sent her to a brothel where other young girls are practicing prostitution. PW2 also testified that the complainant brought the victim to the police station where he reported that he met the victim who was stranded around Madina in Accra; and the victim told him about how she was recruited and transported from Nigeria to Ghana by one Favour who is a Nigerian to work in a restaurant but ended up being forced into prostitution. That the complainant said he rescued the victim and later brought her to the police station after she narrated to him that she was forced into prostitution. The said complainant even though filed his witness statement, did not appear before the court to give evidence. The evidence by PW2 is to the effect that after the victim led Police to arrest accused person, she was interrogated by the police and she admitted working as a prostitute at Olonka, Madina. That the accused also admitted in her caution statement that she recruited the victim herein through one King, a Nigerian. That she further sent an amount of GHS2,500.00 to the said King as transport fare to transport the victim from Nigeria to Ghana. That, the accused again admitted picking the victim at Circle, Accra and keeping her at Olonka, Madina. That the accused made further admissions that she provided the victim with dresses, condoms and condom gel for lubrication during sexual intercourse with men and charged the victim to pay a total amount of GHS5,000.00 but she collected only GHS1,000 plus and recorded same. The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 11 of 21 The said caution statement of the accused person is in evidence as exhibit ‘B’ and for the avoidance of doubt, I reproduce same as follows: “I am a Nigerian from Enugu State. I have been in Ghana for three years and I have been prostituting. In the month of October 2023, I received a call from one King in Nigeria that he had my number from one Chioma and that he the King has a girl call Rejoyce who wants to come to Ghana. I did video call with Rejoyce and I told her that she will be prostituting when I bring her to Ghana. Rejoyce agreed to do. King later told me that since he is connecting Rejoyce to me, he will charge me GH₵1300. I paid the GH₵1,300 and again paid GH₵350 to the same King through mobile money agents who patrol where I stay at Oranka, Madina. The GH₵350 was for Rejoyce to move from Abuja to Lagos. In all I sent GH₵2500.00 to King to transport Rejoyce to Ghana. In same October 2023, Rejoyce arrived in Ghana and I met her at Circle and took her to Oranka-Madina, a getto where prostitution goes on. On arrival at the getto I gave her cloths to prostitute with. I then took video of Rejoyce to say she knows she will prostitute or not. Rejoyce said yes in the video that she knows. I also gave Rejoyce condom to protect herself from men during sexual intercourse and condom gel to lubricate during sex. I entered into agreement with Rejoyce that she will work as a prostitute and pay me GH₵5,000.00. Rejoyce have been paying me GH₵ 80.00 to GH₵200.00 depending on how much she will make from the prostitution. Rejoyce worked for me for about two weeks and I record any amount I receive from Rejoyce as she works as a prostitute. I never beat Rejoyce but I advised her not to take in alcohol and smoke cigarette because she would fight the men who comes in to have sex with her. I have been recording all the money I receive from Rejoyce in an exercise book and the total amount was about GH₵1,000 plus”. The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 12 of 21 Exhibit ‘C’ which is the charge statement of the accused person has same/similar contents as in exhibit ‘B’ reproduced above. A careful scrutiny of exhibits ‘B’ and ‘C’ shows that same were taken in compliance with section 120 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). There was an independent witness in the person of Martin Komla Adiblosu in exhibit ‘B’ and another independent witness in the person of Albert Asare Larbi in exhibit ‘C’. 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 statements were obtained from the accused person immediately she was arrested when issues concerning the instant case were fresh in her mind and also in the presence of independent witnesses, I find the accused person’s denial of same under cross examination 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. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 13 of 21 “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. He gave a detailed account of how he took the tyres and the batteries and sold same without the consent of the complainant who was the owner of the items.” This court will consequently reject the evidence of the accused offered under cross examination in denial of the confession she made and further denial of the presence of an independent witness when the prosecution had closed its case, as an afterthought and self-serving; and carries no evidential or probative value. This is because if indeed the statements were obtained from the accused person involuntarily, the accused person would have raised objection to same when the investigator sought to tender them, as same were earlier served on her by way of disclosure long before PW2 offered them in evidence. Again, if really the statements were not made in the presence of an independent witness, why did the accused person not raise any objection to the statements at the point of being tendered, for a mini trial to be conducted where necessary? Moreover, the investigator who tendered these confession statements was available in Court as PW2 to be cross examined but the accused person in her cross examination of PW2 did not ask any question about the said confession statements he had tendered, that there was no independent witness present when her statements were being taken. From the evidence on record the accused person did not raise any objection when her caution statement and charge statement were offered in evidence by PW2. Indeed, when she cross examined PW2, PW2 referred her to the admissions/confessions she made in her caution and charge statements but the accused person did not rebut same or challenge The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 14 of 21 PW2 to the effect that her caution and charge statements were not taken voluntarily or were taken in the absence of an independent witness. For the avoidance of doubt, I reproduce the cross examination of PW2 by the accused person on 29th May 2024 as follows: “Q: Am I the one who told you that I brought Christiana to Ghana? A: Yes, my lord. Q: Am I the one who told you that I buy condoms for Christiana to use? A: Yes. Q: You asked me if I am the one who sent money for the girl to come to Ghana and I said no, it is one Chidinma and King who is Christiana’s boyfriend who put Christiana in a car to come to Ghana, is that not so? A: That is not so, you said you sent the money and it is captured in your statement. Q: I showed you a video on my phone as evidence that I am not the one who brought the girl to Ghana, why did you ask me to delete the video from my phone. A: There was no video and I did not ask you to delete any video. Q: Do you have evidence that I am the one who brought Christiana to Ghana? A: Yes. The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 15 of 21 Q: Can you bring the evidence to Court? A: The evidence is your own admission in your statement that you sent money to King to transport Christiana Rosa from Nigeria to Ghana; and even paid the said King commission which is captured in your own statement. Q: When you asked me how much Christiana has made so far and I said GHS1,020 you did not ask me whether she gave it to me or not, you just wrote it in your statement. A: That is not so. You told police that you receive every money the victim Christiana Rosa gives to you and you record same. Q: Do you have evidence that I collected the money from Christiana? A: There is no record to show but the victim also told police that she has been giving the money she made to the accused person. When police went back to conduct a search, the accused person’s belongings had been thrown out of the room and the room was given to another person because it was a rented place. Q: The day I was arrested why did you not allow me to call the girl in Nigeria who brought Christiana to Ghana. A: You were allowed to make every call you wanted and even called people from Olonka where you were arrested to step in and free you so you were allowed to make calls.” The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 16 of 21 From the evidence on record, I find that the confessions made by the accused person in her caution and charge statements and offered in evidence as part of the prosecution’s case support the case of the prosecution on the elements of the offence of human trafficking which the accused person has been charged with. Exhibits ‘B’ and ‘C’ also confirm the assertions made by PW1 in her evidence that he met a certain man who said he had a sister in Ghana and can help her secure a job and this sister who happened to be the accused person also spoke with PW1 who assured her of getting her a job in Ghana only for her to arrive in Ghana for the accused person to receive her, and further send her to a brothel in Madina and made her engage in prostitution which the accused person benefited from the proceeds of the prostitution as she admitted taking the monies made by the victim from her in exhibits ‘B’ and ‘C’. Given the circumstances of the PW1 in Nigeria, I find that PW1 being an orphan and jobless without the support of her cousin through which she found herself in Nigeria, was exploited by the accused person through her vulnerability. Thus, the accused person obtained the interest and consent of the victim (PW1) to come to Ghana for job through the exploitation of PW1’s vulnerability and as a result, recruited her through the said King from Nigeria and made her engage in prostitution. Moreover, the victim (PW1) denied that she agreed to engage in prostitution as she told the court that, the accused person assured her of getting a job in a restaurant for her before she came to Ghana. I find PW1 as a credible witness and attach weight to her evidence. From the evidence on record, I find that the accused person paid for the transportation of the victim to Ghana and also received the victim and sent her to the brothel for the purposes of the prostitution which the victim was made to engage in, by exploiting her vulnerability as a result of her being an orphan and unemployed. I further find that the said exploitation included the induced prostitution which the accused person benefited The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 17 of 21 from the proceeds of same as she admitted having taking GHS1,000 plus from the victim for about two weeks that she had engaged in the said prostitution. From the evidence on record, there is sufficient evidence by the prosecution to establish that the accused person recruited, transported, transferred and harboured the victim after she also received the victim when she arrived in Ghana from Nigeria for the purpose of prostitution by the exploitation of her vulnerability; and induced the victim to practice prostitution where the accused benefited from the proceeds of the prostitution. Therefore, I find that the accused person committed the offence of human trafficking. 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 (NRCD 323). The accused person gave evidence and further called two witnesses to testify in her favour but their testimonies could not raise a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused person because there is satisfactory evidence on record to sustain the charge against the accused person. I support my decision with the dictum of Denning J. (as he then was) in the case of Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All E.R. 372 at p. 373 where he said: "Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a 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, The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 18 of 21 but not in the least probable,' the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice.” CONCLUSION On the totality of the evidence on record, I find that the prosecution proved their case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. For the foregoing reasons, I pronounce the accused person herein guilty of the offence of human trafficking. Pre-Sentencing hearing Court: Accused person, do you have any plea in mitigation before sentence is passed? The accused person did not say anything and is acting unremorsefully. Court: Is the accused person known? Prosecutor: No, but we want to invite the court to consider the prevalence nature of human trafficking which is more or less becoming a national monster. In view of this, we pray that the punishment to be imposed by this court should be deterrent enough to both the accused person and any other person who may have the intention to commit similar offences. We pray accordingly. The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 19 of 21 SENTENCING In sentencing the accused person, the court takes into consideration the fact that the she is a first-time offender as well as her youthful age. In accordance with Article 14(6) of the 1992 Constitution, time spent in custody by the accused person pending trial is considered by the court. However, the court has also considered the fact that the accused person did not give any plea in mitigation and has also shown unremorseful behaviour in the dock. The court has again considered the fact that the accused person is not currently pregnant. The court has further considered the prevalence of the offence of human trafficking within the jurisdiction of this court, across national borders particularly from Nigeria to Ghana where the victims are forced into prostitution. This court is of the view that there is a need to impose a deterrent sentence to send a signal to the accused person and other people with similar criminal propensity to curb the spate of human trafficking within the jurisdiction of the court and the nation as a whole. I consequently sentence the accused person to serve a term of imprisonment of eight (8) years in hard labour. In accordance with section 19 of the Human Trafficking Act, 2005 (Act 694) as amended by Act 784, the convict is ordered to pay an amount of GHS5,000.00 to the victim of trafficking as compensation. [SGD.] H/H AKOSUA A. ADJEPONG (MRS) The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 20 of 21 (CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE) The Republic v. Favour Ugwe (CASE NO.: D21/040/24) Page 21 of 21