REPUBLIC VRS. DANQUAH AND ANOTHER (D8/001/2022) [2024] GHACC 340 (22 August 2024)

IN THE CHILD-FRIENDLY GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE CIRCUIT COURT, DOVVSU HEADQUARTERS, ACCRA, BEFORE HER HONOUR JUDGE DORA G. A. INKUMSAH ESHUN (MRS.) SITTING ON THURSDAY THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024 SUIT NO: D8/001/2022 THE REPUBLIC V. 1. EMMANUEL KWAME ADDO DANQUAH 2. MALIK OKE JUDGMENT The first accused person is a 38-year-old piano teacher, while the second accused person is a 27-year-old trader. The accused persons were arraigned on one charge each of causing harm to the other contrary to section 69 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The second accused person was also charged with one count of causing unlawful damage to the windscreen of the first accused person’s car, contrary to section 172(1)(b) of Act 29. The accused persons pleaded “Not Guilty” to the charges and were granted bail in the amount of GH¢20,000 with two sureties, with the condition that they should report to the investigator at the Nungua Domestic Violence and Victim’s Support Unit (DOVVSU) station every other Thursday at 10am until the end of the trial. The brief facts reported by the investigator are that the first accused person is A2’s maternal uncle. The accused persons live in separate homes. After the death of their mother, A2 and his two siblings have been denied of their late mother’s room in their grandmother’s house. “This did not go down well” with A2, whose sister who has health difficulties, lives in the family house. When he had information that his sister was being maltreated, A2 decided to go to the house to see things for himself. On the morning of 27th April 2022, A2 went to the family house and met his aunties occupying a small room he claims belongs to his late mother and sacked them from the room. A1 was called on the phone and went to the house where there was a confrontation between the accused persons. A1, who was holding a long metallic padlock, tried to sack A2 to lock the hall, while A2 tried to take possession of the padlock. A2 managed to pull one side of the padlock which divided into two and they started to hit each other with it, injuring each other in the process. As they were going to the police station to report, A1 jumped into his car to drive to the station but accidentally drove into a gutter. Then A2 rushed to the car and smashed the windscreen with a shovel. The two accused persons rushed to the Nungua Police Station to lodge reports. They were issued with medical forms which they submitted to the police after attending the hospital. After investigations, they were charged with the offences and brought before the court. After case management, the prosecution opened their case with five witnesses, a) Dr. Prince Emmanuel Yirenkyi (PW1), a senior medical officer at the Surgical Department of the LEKMA Hospital, b) Mr. Bortey B. Manison (PW2), a physician assistant, medical, at the LEKMA Polyclinic, c) Det. P.W. C. I. Gloria Akumatey (PW3), the investigator, d) Malik Oke (A2), and e) Emmanuel Kwame Addo Danquah (A1). Selina Addo and Henrietta Adjei Darko, A1’s siblings and A2’s aunts, failed to appear to testify on behalf of A1. Their witness statements are therefore struck out. The prosecution tendered the following documents in evidence: 1. Police Medical Form for Malik Oke dated 27th April 2022 (Exhibit A). 2. Police Medical Form for Kwame Addo Danquah dated 22nd April 2022 (Exhibit B). 3. Four pictures on one A4 sheet of A1 with wounds on his shaved head (Exhibit C). 4. A picture of A2 with a wound on his shaved head (Exhibit D). 5. Two pictures on one A4 sheet – one of a car with the windscreen smashed on the passenger side and another of A1 in a bloody shirt (Exhibit E). 6. Investigation cautioned statement of Kwame Addo Danquah at Nungua DOVVSU Station dated 28th April 2022 (Exhibit F). 7. Investigation cautioned statement of Malik Oke at Nungua DOVVSU Station dated 28th April 2022 (Exhibit G). 8. Charged cautioned statement of Emmanuel Addo Danquah dated 1st June 2022 (Exhibit H). 9. Charged cautioned statement of Malik Oke dated 1st June 2022 (Exhibit J). 10. Coloured picture of orange lock (Exhibit K). 11. The orange car steering wheel metallic lock (Exhibit K1). 12. Police Statement of Kwame Addo Danquah at Nungua DOVVSU dated 28th April 2022 (Exhibit L). Judgment The Republic v. Emmanuel K Addo Danquah & Malik Oke 22 Aug 2024 Page 2 On February 7, 2023, the court found that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case against the accused persons to answer. The accused persons were ordered to open their defence and were informed of their right to remain silent, make a statement from the dock or give evidence on oath. Both accused persons opted to give evidence on oath. An eyewitness to the events, Mr. Richmond Attrams, whose police statement was filed, failed to appear in court to testify for either the prosecution or the defence after he was summoned. Madam Selina Addo and Madam Henrietta Adjei, A1’s sisters who were to appear as his witnesses, failed to appear to testify. A1 tendered the following documents: 1. A coloured picture of a porch with a double door facing a staircase and a smaller door to the left (Exhibit 1). 2. A coloured picture of a metal burglar proof gate (Exhibit 2). 3. Four coloured pictures on one A4 sheet of A1’s profile in a bloody shirt with his head shaved and a car with the windscreen shattered on the passenger seat side (not clear) (Exhibit 3). 4. Two coloured pictures on one A4 sheet of blood splatter on a wall and on tiles on the ground (Exhibit 4). 5. A photocopy of Letters of Administration (Not with Will Annexed) in the High Court of Ghana, Greater Accra Region granted to Eric Kwamena Benyarko, Selina Addo and Barbara Bio, signed by Frank K. Brobbey as the Registrar (Exhibit 5). 6. A written statement of Richmond Attrams at the Nungua DOVVSU dated 1st June 2022 (Exhibit 6). 7. A coloured copy of a GPS Map showing areas marked Comm 4 and Comm 1 (Exhibit R). 8. A coloured print-out of a Ghana Post address (Exhibit R). 9. An undated witness statement of Richmond Attrams which was not signed by the prosecutor but was allegedly signed by the deponent (Exhibit R). 10. A witness statement of Richmond Attrams which was not signed by the prosecutor or the deponent or dated (Exhibit R). A2 tendered the following documents: 1. A coloured picture showing a wound on A2’s shaved head (Exhibit 7). 2. A black and white picture of the metallic steering wheel lock (Exhibit 8). The issues the court must determine are, whether; Judgment The Republic v. Emmanuel K Addo Danquah & Malik Oke 22 Aug 2024 Page 3 1. A1 has raised a reasonable doubt that he intentionally and unlawfully caused harm to A2, 2. A2 has raised a reasonable doubt that he intentionally and unlawfully caused harm to A1, and 3. A2 has raised a reasonable doubt that he intentionally and unlawfully caused damage to the windscreen of A1’s car. In section 177(1) of the Criminal and Other Offences Procedure Act, 1960 (Act 30), “The court, having heard the totality of the evidence, shall consider, and determine the whole matter and may, (a) convict the accused and pass sentence on, or make an order against the accused according to law, or (b) acquit the accused, and the Court shall give its decision in the form of an oral judgment, and shall record the decision briefly together with the reasons for it, where necessary.” [Hausa v. The Republic [1981] GLR 840]. The burden of proof is defined as the burden of persuasion and the burden of producing evidence [sections 10 and 11 of the Evidence Act, 1975, NRCD 323]. The burden of proof is the obligation of a party to establish the requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the court [section 10(1) of NRCD 323]. In a criminal case, the burden of producing evidence as to a fact that is essential to guilt, requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence, a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt [section 11(2) of NRCD 323]. The burden of persuasion on the accused person as to a fact the converse of which is essential to his guilt, requires only that the accused raise a reasonable doubt as to guilt [section 13(2) of NRCD 323]; [Ali Yusuf Issa (No. 2) v. The Republic [2003 – 2004] SCGLR 174]. The court will consider the first two issues together. In section 69 of Act 29: “A person who intentionally and unlawfully causes harm to any person commits a second-degree felony”. The elements of this offence are that: 1. The accused person unlawfully caused harm to the complainant or victim, and 2. The accused person intentionally caused harm to the complainant or victim. Dr. Prince Emmanuel Yirenkyi, a senior medical officer currently at the Surgical Department of the LEKMA Hospital (PW1) testified that he examined A2 on 28th April 2022. He tendered A2’s medical form into evidence (Exhibit A). According to PW1, A2 said he had been allegedly assaulted and sustained an injury to the scalp. He complained Judgment The Republic v. Emmanuel K Addo Danquah & Malik Oke 22 Aug 2024 Page 4 of a mild headache and on examination, he had moderate pain and a scalp laceration which was actively bleeding and tender. The wound was washed, cleaned, sutured and dressed. A2 was given an injection, tetanus toxoid and oral medication including Amoksiklav and Diclofenac. The wound was on the frontal part of A2’s scalp, beginning from the hairline backwards. He identified A2’s wound in Exhibit D which showed A2’s head and face. Mr. Enoch Bortey Borquaye Manison (PW2), a medical physician assistant at the LEKMA Polyclinic, Adogonnor, Nungua, testified that he attended to A1 on 28th April 2022. He tendered A1’s police medical report (Exhibit B) into evidence and said A1 complained of allegedly being assaulted by his nephew, resulting in him developing multiple lacerations on his scalp and forehead. On examination, A1 was bleeding from multiple wounds at the beginning of the scalp near the upper forehead, on the upper forehead and in the middle of the scalp. A1 was given Paracetamol and Amoksiklav tablets. PW2 tendered four pictures on one sheet of A1 with cut wounds on his forehead, frontal scalp and middle scalp (Exhibit C). The investigator, Det. Cpl. C. I. Gloria Akumatey (PW3), testified that the case was referred to her for investigation on 27th April 2022 while she was on duty at the Nungua Divisional DOVVSU. Police medical forms were given to the accused persons and their statements were taken. She visited the scene of the crime with both accused persons who pointed out the place at the corridor where they fought and injured themselves in the house. She then obtained charged caution statements from them. PW3 confirmed that she was aware that the incident occurred on the day the accused persons reported to the police station and not over three days as alleged by A1. PW3 and A2 denied A1’s assertion that A2 refused to settle the case with their elders because he said he was influencing the case to the court level through the CID with a large sum of money, before A1’s two sisters and two other witnesses. No evidence was adduced to support this allegation. A2 also submitted to the court at various points in the trial that A1 had threatened him to compel him to drop the case. A1 attempted to tender a witness statement (Exhibit 6) through PW3, purportedly signed by Mr. Richmond Attrams who he referred to as “Richard” Attrams. Mr Attrams is the only eyewitness to the incident. Neither the court copy, the prosecutor’s copy nor A1’s copy was signed. A1 said he was given the document to send to Mr. Attrams to sign and showed it to the prosecutor after Mr Attrams allegedly signed it. The prosecutor said he asked the parties to bring their witnesses to sign their statements before they were filed Judgment The Republic v. Emmanuel K Addo Danquah & Malik Oke 22 Aug 2024 Page 5 and served. A1 and A2 brought no one and Mr. Richmond Attrams said he did not want to get involved in the case. The prosecutor noted that he did not sign his portion of the witness statement A1 sought to tender for Mr. Attrams as it was not signed before him. PW3 also testified that Mr. Richmond Attrams declined to testify as he did not want to get involved in A1 and A2’s family matters. For these reasons, the witness statement A1 attempted to tender for Mr. Richmond Attram was rejected. A1 and A2 testified for the prosecution and in their defence. The court finds from the testimony adduced by the witnesses and the evidence that A1 is A2’s maternal uncle. A2’s mother predeceased his grandmother (A1’s mother) who had a property consisting of about 40 rooms. When A2’s grandmother died, A2’s maternal uncles and aunts distributed the rooms and shops in her property amongst themselves and give A2, his brother, and sister one room and a hall. Details were not given about the shops they took possession of. A1 and his siblings, particularly Henrietta Adjei and Selina Addo, were given about seven rooms each. Henrietta Adjei and Selina Addo took over the room and hall given to A2 and his siblings, in addition to the rooms they had taken possession of. A2 needed a place to stay and found that the belongings of his sister, who has a health challenge, were put out in the hallway. He went over to the house and asked his aunties when the tenancy of their tenants in the two rooms would expire. His aunts became offended and A2 reported the matter to the police. The police advised the aunties to move out of the two rooms since they had their own rooms. When the aunties moved out of the rooms, they notified A1, who met A2 at the house and attempted to persuade A2 to let him take possession of the rooms and rent them out. A2 declined A1’s offer and told him that he would decide what to do with the rooms with his siblings. A1 took offence at A2’s refusal to hand over the two rooms to him. On 28th April 2022 at around 6:00 - 7am, A1 went to the hall where A2 was sleeping with a steering wheel metal padlock (Exhibit K1) in hand and demanded that A2 move out of the rooms allotted to A2 and his siblings. When A2 refused to move out, A1 threatened to strike him on the head with the lock. After they exchanged words, A1 struck A2 on the head with the padlock several times. A2 grabbed the padlock which is detachable depending on how the key is turned in the middle, and half of the lock came out. A2 used it to defend himself so that he could get away from A1 and moved out of the premises. A2 identified the corridor in Exhibit 4 as the corridor leading to the entrance of his grandmother’s room. Judgment The Republic v. Emmanuel K Addo Danquah & Malik Oke 22 Aug 2024 Page 6 A1 admitted that he approached A2 with the metal bar while he was sleeping and asked him to move to his sister’s room so he could lock the hall. A1 said he had inserted the key in the metal padlock as he was speaking to Selina, while A2 was screaming and threatening the entire family. As he was leaving to lock the hall entrance, A2 rushed and held the lock to take it from him. The lock split in two when the key turned coincidentally while A2 was pulling the lock from his hand. A2 pulled the silver stainless steel part of the lock by locking his hand at the two yellow pointers. According to A1, in a few seconds, A2 pulled the front of the lock and hit A1’s forehead with a hard strike. A1 tried to hide his face from A2 and take the lock from him. A2 hit his head hard two more times. After the third time, he managed to retrieve the front of the lock from A2 and took the decision to defend himself and out of reflex, hit him once. This led to A2 running outside. A1 testified that the front part of the lock A2 claimed A1 used hit him has two hook pointers and not one as seen on A2’s head. A2 testified that he refused A1’s demand to pack out of the house because he had nowhere to go at that time. It is his grandmother’s house, A1 and his siblings are family, and they gave A2 and his siblings two rooms. Since he had no other place to go, he could not vacate the house. A1 began to argue with A2 and hit A2’s head with the metal bar he was holding. In the process of hitting A2’s head with the metal bar, it came apart into two pieces and A2 was able to use half of it to defend himself from A1’s aggression. After defending himself, A2 was able to go out of the house. A2 insisted that A1 hit him multiple times with the lock – he did not have more bruises than those shown in Exhibit 7 because his hair is thick and because of the nature of his hairstyle. When A2 appeared in court at the beginning of the trial, his thick hair was pulled up to the top of his head in a ponytail. Towards the end of the trial his hair was braided into twists. A2 insisted that he only defended himself from A1’s aggression. Since A1 came into the room while he was sleeping, shouting and holding the metal bar, A1’s intention was to harm or kill him because a metal bar is not used to lock room doors as A1 claims. A2 told the prosecutor under cross-examination that he could not report the matter the police immediately but had to defend himself because A1 was standing at the entrance of the gate so that he could go out to the police or the hospital. When A2 pointed out that A1’s testimony that A2 did not know how the lock operates in paragraph 15 of his witness statement is true, A1 stated “That is true, my lady”. A1 told the prosecutor that the metal lock cannot divide into two by itself when the key is inserted. You must turn the key and hold the lock before you can adjust it to lock it. For the other Judgment The Republic v. Emmanuel K Addo Danquah & Malik Oke 22 Aug 2024 Page 7 part to come out, you must pull at the other side of the lock. Once the key is turned, it is possible for the other part to come out. A1 said when A2 stepped away from Mr. Richmond Attrams, he held the lock to retrieve it from A1’s hand. The key turned coincidentally and then A2 pulled the front part of the lock – this corroborates A2’s testimony on how part of the metal lock came to be in his hand. In Exhibit 6, Mr. Richmond Attrams stated that when he came out of his room after hearing a noise, he saw A1 holding a lock while exchanging words with A2. They started fighting and A2 pulled the metal lock. It divided into two with each accused person holding one part. They continued fighting with the lock. He did not see who hit the other with the lock and did not notice what happened after that. Mr. Attrams stated that A2 had been to the house and spent five days at the house before the incident. A2 denied the portion of Exhibit 6 where Mr. Attrams said he pulled the metal lock. A2 said after A1 hit him, the lock separated then he took the other half to defend himself. He hit A1 back to make him get out of the way so that he could go outside. A1 testified that he acquired the metal padlock from home used goods that were imported into the house by Henrietta Kesewa Adjei’s husband such as chairs, plastics, microwaves and tables. After the items were sorted, they realised the metal lock could lock the burglar proof entrance to the hall. They have used the lock for that purpose since it was acquired about 4 years ago. To use the lock, you must insert and turn the key and adjust the lock by either compressing or lengthening the parts (making the lock shorter or longer). The front part of the lock can be separated by inserting the key, turning it and pulling the front part out. According to A1, the lock has been used to secure the entrance to the hall by locking the gate vertically and not to cause harm to a fellow human being. A1 admitted that before the date of the incident A2 had never used the lock. The court takes judicial notice of the fact that the device referred to by A1 as a metal padlock which he claims was regularly used to lock the hall, is a vehicle steering wheel lock which is commonly used abroad. A1’s witness statements were very difficult to read because it was written in a rambling incoherent manner with issues with the grammar and sentence structure. A1’s defence witness statement contained 19 paragraphs with some paragraphs consisting of as much as five sub paragraphs. A1 testified that A2 threatened his aunts and family, assaulted his aunties, smoked weed, drank alcohol, prevented the shops in the property from being opened and behaved in an aggressive manner. These allegations, repeated in A1’s investigation caution statement (Exhibit F), were not supported by any evidence. While cross-examining A2, A1 attempted to quote from Mr. Richmond Attram’s witness Judgment The Republic v. Emmanuel K Addo Danquah & Malik Oke 22 Aug 2024 Page 8 statement (Exhibit R); and attempted to insert testimony into PW3’s witness statement on the metallic padlock. A1 also alleged that A2 has lived in his father and grandfather’s house at Tema Community 4 across the street from Tema Community 1 for the past 8 years. He tendered a coloured copy of a GPS Map showing areas marked Comm 4 and Comm 1 (Exhibit R) and a coloured print-out of a Ghana Post address (Exhibit R) to prove A2’s father lived in Community 4. When A2 denied that his grandfather and father had ever owned a house at Community 4 because they rather lived at Community 1, Site 9, A1 said it was virtually the same place, because Community 4 is just across the street from Community 1. When A2 put it to A1 that his statement was false because Community 4 and Community 1 are not the same and A1 was just “saying something”, A1 said, “No objection”. The exhibits were rejected as nothing showed that they were related to A2’s father’s location. Furthermore, A1 was cautioned about the possibility of committing a cyber offence by taking pictures of a house without the owner’s permission. When A2 put it to A1 that he lived with his grandmother his whole life and was present at his grandmother’s funeral in 2017, A1 claimed he did not see him. A1’s testimony that he did not see Malik in the house and did not know his whereabouts until the material date is contradicted by his statement that A2 came to the house on several occasions to threaten his aunts and cause mayhem in the house. A1 insisted that A2 had no part in his mother’s inheritance although he is A1’s deceased sister’s son. He evaded the question as to whether A2’s mother had a share in the property and then denied it. He said there are thirty rooms in the house that were distributed by the family elders, specifically Papa Adjei, Charlotte Danquah and Yaw Asare. A1 admitted that provision was made for A2’s mother’s child called Baaba who is autistic. Under cross- examination, A1 testified that there are administrators to his mother’s property who are currently preparing or trying to acquire the legal documents for the property. A1 tendered Letters of Administration Not with Will Annexed (Exhibit 5) for the personal property of Charlotte Afua Danquah granted to Eric Kwamena Benyarko, Selina Addo and Barbara Bio dated 16th August 2017 in the High Court of Ghana. The letters of Administration were signed by Frank K. Brobbey Registrar on Supreme Court Form No. 42. When A2 asserted that the letters of administration were not valid because A1 said the administrators were now acquiring legal documents, A1 said the documents the administrators were preparing were vesting assents. A2 fiercely submitted that the Letters Judgment The Republic v. Emmanuel K Addo Danquah & Malik Oke 22 Aug 2024 Page 9 of Administration were not genuine and testified that the first time he was aware of the Letters of Administration was when A1 tendered it in court because the rooms were distributed verbally. The court notes that there is no signature of the judge who granted the Letters of Administration, neither is there an official stamp on the document. A1’s testimony that several elders of the family and the family head (Papa Adjei) spoke with A2 and told him he need not inherit part of his grandmother’s property conflicted with his previous testimony that his senior brother, Eric Kwabena Benyarko who lives in the United States of America, offered to give A2 a chamber and hall self-contained and one master bedroom to calm him down or as an incentive to drop the case. According to A1, A2 refused the offer because he wanted a particular walled territory so A1’s senior brother withdrew his offer. A2 denied any knowledge of this offer. Later, when A1 was being cross-examined by the prosecutor, he testified that his senior brother gave A2 the offer when the matter was in court. When A2 was invited by the family elders to discuss it, he failed to appear. A1 also said that his brother has a vesting assent for the rooms he offered A2 which does not include A2’s name. The vesting assent was executed by Mr. Benyarko, Selina Adddo and Barbara Bioh, A1’s youngest sibling, who are the persons named in the Letters of Administration. None of them are currently the Head of Family. A2 confirmed under cross-examination that he has never rented the two bedrooms he and his siblings were given, how much more to request more rooms. On July 18, 2024, A2 reported that eight people attacked him in his room at Prampram and attempted to carry and drop him into a well. He had to defend himself and ran to the DOVVSU HQ premises for shelter, where he was forcibly ejected by security forces. He hung around the shelter and reported some days later that while sleeping on the street outside the Police Headquarters, someone threatened him with a gun. The court ordered the Director of DOVVSU HQ to render assistance to the visibly frightened, wounded and shaken A2 under sections 6(6)(d) and 7 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2007 (Act 732). He was granted assistance to make his report at the Prampram Police Station. While A2 was addressing the court, A1 suddenly got up in court to say A2 had been threatening him, which A2 denied. After comparing the evidence of the prosecution and the defence, the court finds that A2 has presented an acceptable and reasonably probable account of the events that happened on the material date (Lutterodt v. COP [1963] 2 GLR 429-440). The court finds that A1 attacked A2 with the steering wheel lock to get him out of the hall and room allocated to Judgment The Republic v. Emmanuel K Addo Danquah & Malik Oke 22 Aug 2024 Page 10 A2 and his siblings in his grandmother’s property so that A1 could take over those rooms. A1’s actions showed that he intended to harm A2 within the meaning of section 11 of Act 29. In section 11 of Act 29: (1) Where a person does an act for the purpose of causing or contributing to cause an event, that person intends to cause that event, within the meaning of this Act, although in fact, or in the belief of that person or both in fact and also in that belief, the act is unlikely to cause or to contribute to cause the event. (2) A person who does an act voluntarily, believing that it will probably cause or contribute to cause an event, intends to cause that event within the meaning of this Act, although that person does not do the act for the purpose of causing or contributing to cause the event. (3) A person who does an act of such a kind or in a manner that, if reasonable caution and observation had been used, it would appear to that person, (a) that the act would probably cause or contribute to cause an event, (b) that there would be great risk of the act causing or contributing to cause an event, intends for the purposes of this section, to cause that event until it is shown that, that person believed that the act would probably not cause or contribute to cause the event, or that there was not an intention to cause or contribute to it. The grounds for justifiable force or harm in criminal law include “of a necessity for the prevention of or defence against a criminal offence” [section 31(f) of Act 29]. In Agyeman v. The Republic (No. 2) [1974] 2 GLR 398, it was held that putting an end to a verbal altercation by the use of force could not be considered as one of the circumstances in which force could be justified on the ground of the need to prevent a crime. Self-defence is a fundamental human right, guaranteed even to the extent of depriving another person of their life. This right is enshrined in article 13(2)(a) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana which is reflected in section 37 of Act 29 as follows: “For the prevention of, or for personal defence or the defence of any other person against a criminal offence, or for the suppression or dispersion of a riotous or an unlawful assembly, a person may justify the use of force or harm which is reasonably necessary extending in case of extreme necessity, even to killing.” In Palmer v. R [1971] AC 814, Lord Morris held that self-defence is a relatively simple defence based on law and common sense. It either applies or does not apply. The jury should consider whether in a moment of unexpected anguish, a person attacked, had only Judgment The Republic v. Emmanuel K Addo Danquah & Malik Oke 22 Aug 2024 Page 11 done what they honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, as the most potent evidence that only a reasonably defensive action had been taken. In The State v. Ampomah [1960] GLR 262, SC, the Court of Appeal held that a person is entitled to strike in self-defence, even unto death. The court finds that A1’s use of force after he tried to verbally eject A2 out of the hall and room allotted to A2 and his siblings was unjustified under law. When A1 began hitting A2 with the steering wheel lock and it came apart, A2 used the half of the lock he had access to, to defend himself so that A1 would move out of the way to enable A2 leave the house safely. Therefore A2’s use of force was justified to defend himself and preserve his life. Indeed, throughout the trial, A2 constantly complained of headaches and problems with his head flowing from the incident which he could not fully attend to due to financial constraints. He missed a few court dates because of these problems. The court finds therefore that A2 has raised a reasonable doubt that he caused harm to A1 with the metallic padlock. A1 on the other hand has failed to raise a reasonable doubt that he caused harm to A2 with a metallic padlock. The court will now consider whether A2 has raised a reasonable doubt that he intentionally and unlawfully caused damaged to the windscreen of A1’s car. In section 172(1) of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29): “A person who intentionally and unlawfully causes damage to any property, (a) to a value not exceeding one million cedis, or without a pecuniary value, commits a misdemeanour, (b) to a value exceeding one million cedis commits a second-degree felony”. A1 testified that after the confrontation with A2, he sparked his car which was parked in front of the house, to go to the Greda Estate Police Station. According to A1, his mother’s house is on the right side of the road going towards GREDA Estate Police Station. On the way, A2 picked a shovel to hit his car so he quickly made a U-turn to go to the police station and the car entered the gutter. A1 then began destroying his windscreen with the help of passers-by while A2 was in the car. A1 came out of the car and went to Greda Estate Police Station where he was asked to go to the Nungua Police DOVVSU. Under cross-examination, A1 said A2 came to the middle of the road with a shovel, attempting to hit his windscreen. While avoiding A2, A1’s car got stuck in the gutter. A2 quickly rushed to the car and started hitting his windscreen countless times and “I was in Judgment The Republic v. Emmanuel K Addo Danquah & Malik Oke 22 Aug 2024 Page 12 the car quietly watching him destroy my windscreen”. He later told the prosecutor that A2 was standing next to the door of a glass manufacturer, a minute’s walking distance and a few meters away from the house, which is very big with long walls. The glass manufacturer is almost in front of their house – on the same line. A2 was standing on A1’s left side on the bumpy road with a shovel in his hand. A1 then told the prosecutor that A2 was standing at his left side when he drove out of the house with a shovel in his hands inside the road. He turned right and started heading towards a roundabout and his car got stuck in the gutter on the right side of the road. Under further cross-examination, A1 said after the first attempt, he tried to swerve towards the right direction because A2 was on his left. When A2 saw that the vehicle got stuck in the gutter, “...he quickly rushed with a shovel in his hand and countless times Malik Oke hit and destroyed my car windscreen in the full glare of the public”. A1 denied destroying his own windscreen or driving onto stones or blocks. When he was asked where his witnesses were, A1 said they were not showing interest in the case, however A2 did it publicly. When he was asked where the shovel A2 allegedly used to hit his car was, A1 said he did not know. A1 said there is a blood stain outside his car, on the left driver’s side, but no evidence was tendered to show this bloodstain. A1 identified his black Honda Fit Vehicle with registration number GA 2338 2018 in Exhibit E (and 3). Exhibit E shows a picture of the car with a dented windscreen and another of A1 sitting in the car with blood on his chest and shirt. The following questions and answers reveal A2’s cross-examination of A1 on the car in Exhibit 3: Q: The first picture of you in Exhibit 3 is not your car you are sitting in because his car was stuck in the gutter. How can I attack you in your car and you are snapping pictures of yourself? A: I don’t understand what he is saying. BC: It’s a clear question. Please answer it. A: That is the picture indicating Malik’s attack on my vehicle. I didn’t take picture of myself but rather after he destroyed my car, I took pictures of he, Malik Oke destroying my vehicle countless times with a shovel. That’s not what I meant. My lady, Malik Oke destroyed my car by hitting my car countless times with a shovel when I was going to the Greda Police Station to report. Judgment The Republic v. Emmanuel K Addo Danquah & Malik Oke 22 Aug 2024 Page 13 BC: You are not answering the question. A: This is a picture I took after Malik Oke destroyed my vehicle. BC: Whose vehicle were you sitting in? A: My own vehicle my lady. It’s a picture we took at the DOVVSU Police Station. Q: That is not true my lord. His car was not at the DOVVSU police station the first day the incident happened. I saw him sitting in someone’s car when they came to the police station. A: Yes, because my car got stuck, the first day, I didn’t go to the police station with the car. After the next day, I drove there. It’s a picture I took the next day. A2 testified in his defence and while cross-examining A1 that, after he defended himself from A1’s aggression and managed to get out of the house, he left the metal bar in the house and stood two blocks or three buildings away, waiting for a taxi to go to the police station or hospital because he was bleeding severely from his head and was in pain. When he realized there was no car coming, A1 drove his Honda vehicle which was parked in the house, towards A2’s direction behind the gutter off the road, to hit A2 with the car. There was somebody selling bricks where A2 was standing. A1 drove into the bricks and got stuck in the gutter. A1 then came out of his car holding the metal bar, so A2 took a piece of wood from the ground to defend himself because he knew A1 intended to hit him with his car after using the metal bar to hit his head. A2 denied causing damage to A1’s car because he was in pain and had no strength or intention to damage A1’s car as he was waiting to go to the police station or hospital. A1 damaged his car himself when he drove it onto the bricks/stones. When A2 picked up the piece of wood, he did not use it to touch A1 or his car. He stood there with it in case A1 came back to attack him with the metal bar, which A1 was still holding in the car. After the car was damaged by the stones/bricks in front of the gutter A2 was standing behind, A1 got out of the car and wanted to attack A2, but bystanders pulled him away. At that point, A2 dropped the piece of wood and took a taxi to the police station. A2 said he did not hold a shovel at any point in time when he was by the roadside. The investigator charged A2 with causing damage to A2’s car because he wanted her to process the case for court and she was refusing to do so. A2 repeated that his mum’s brothers and sisters are now saying that he and his siblings have no share in their late grandmother’s property. Judgment The Republic v. Emmanuel K Addo Danquah & Malik Oke 22 Aug 2024 Page 14 There was no information in PW3’s witness statement on an investigation into the allegations of causing damage A1 made against A2 for his car. She tendered a picture of A1 in his car with the windscreen broken – Exhibit E. When A2 put it to her that she charged him with causing damage when he did not damage A2’s windscreen, PW3 testified that, “My lady, A1 came with his car, the windscreen of his car was damaged, and he claimed it was A2 who caused the damage to the windscreen and none of them could produce witnesses to support their statement. That is why I charged him based on A1’s statement”. The court notes that no evidence was tendered of the shovel allegedly used by A2 to “destroy” the windscreen of A1’s car. Exhibit E, which shows A1 sitting in his car and a frontal picture of the car, shows the windscreen damaged on the left side of the windscreen if you are facing the car from the outside, or on the right side of the car facing the co-pilot’s seat if you were inside the car. The position of the damage to the windscreen is on the far side of A2’s position when he stood behind the gutter on the left side of the road (which was also confirmed by A1). In his investigation caution statement (Exhibit G) A2 stated that the reason A1’s car was damaged was because A1 wanted to use his car to hit A2’s leg and A2 managed to find a piece of wood to defend himself from getting hit by A1’s car. The court finds from the evidence that, when A2 left the house, he stood two blocks (some meters) away from the house on the opposite side of the road behind the gutter, next to a brick seller, looking for a taxi to go to either the hospital or the police station. A1 drove his car from the compound inside the house, exited the gate and moved towards A2’s direction in a manner that put fear into A2 that A1 was going to hit him. A2 picked up a piece of wood from the road to defend himself. A1’s car hit some blocks near A2 and ended up in the gutter. When A1 got out of his car and attempted to attack him, bystanders separated them and A2 dropped the piece of wood and went to the Greda Estates Police Station. After comparing the evidence of the prosecution and the defence, the court finds that A2 has presented an acceptable and reasonably probable account of the events that happened when A1 and A2 left the house after they clashed. (Lutterodt v. COP [1963] 2 GLR 429- 440). This case turns on the following: an inheritance dispute; societal perception and prejudice; the metal bar/metal lock/steering wheel lock and the invisible shovel. A1, who said he Judgment The Republic v. Emmanuel K Addo Danquah & Malik Oke 22 Aug 2024 Page 15 was a piano teacher, was well-dressed at each sitting with a neat appearance, while A2 came in with half of his head shaved and long locks at the middle and upper part of his head that were coiffed into a braid or top knot throughout most of the trial. Towards the end of the trial, A1 appeared completely dishevelled after he told the court he had been attacked and had nowhere to live. Considering all the accusations and allegations A1 made about A2 and his lifestyle (that he allegedly smoked weed, drank beer etc.) clearly, A1 relied on the expectation of the traditional or societal aversion to persons who dress alternatively, look and seem different, to cover his nephew A2 with the garment of guilt. A1’s evidence was contradictory, confirmed A2’s evidence on material facts and could not meet the standard of the burden of proof mandated by the Evidence Act to exculpate him. When he gave his testimony in an exaggerated manner and denied the A2’s allegations he would smile. The court finds that: a) A1 has not raised a reasonable doubt that he intentionally and unlawfully caused harm to his nephew A2 when he hit him on the head with the metallic steering wheel lock. b) A2 on the other hand, has raised a reasonable doubt that he intentionally and unlawfully caused harm to his uncle A1 with the metallic steering wheel lock or that he intentionally and unlawfully caused damage to the windscreen of A1’s car. A2 is therefore acquitted and discharged of the offences of: a) causing harm contrary to section 69 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), and b) causing unlawful damage contrary to section 172(1)(b) of Act 29. A1 is found guilty of the offence of causing harm contrary to section 69 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). While addressing the court, A1 prayed to “…refrain from any environment that leads to violence”. He told the court that he is married with four daughters and a son. The oldest is twelve years and the youngest four years. A1 said he was aware it is an offence for him to keep his children from going to school, but the children are now staying home without going to school because the case has affected his work as a part-time school music teacher. He also said his wife does not work. They had to move from Spintex to Adjei-Kojo because of her work and because he could not afford rent. When the court noted that A1 manages his own hours as a part-time teacher and was given at least 7 rooms in his mother’s house Judgment The Republic v. Emmanuel K Addo Danquah & Malik Oke 22 Aug 2024 Page 16 which he rented out, A1 asked to be pardoned and promised “…to stay away from any environment that encourages violence”. A2 testified that since A1 hit his head with the metal bar, he has been bleeding from his nose almost every week and has had pain in his head. He has been rendered homeless and cannot live where he pays his rent because he was attacked there. A2 said he was unable to rent the rooms he and his siblings were given out, because there was no proper paperwork in relation to his grandmother’s estate. He was also unable to seek proper treatment for his injuries because of financial difficulty. A2 prayed that the court would give him justice. The court noted that although both accused persons were charged with causing harm, A2 was visibly affected by the altercation and the case had to be adjourned several times because he had headaches and needed to seek treatment for his injuries. Considering A2’s submission that he was financially handicapped, it was not possible to determine the full extent of his injury. 1. A1, Emmanuel Kwame Addo Danquah, is convicted of the offence of causing harm contrary to section 69 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). 2. A1 is sentenced to pay a fine of 450 penalty units (GH¢5,400), or in default, serve a term of one year at the Nsawam Medium Security Prison in hard labour. 3. A1 shall pay A2’s medical bills related to the harm A1 caused, which shall be filed in court. 4. A1 shall pay compensation of 500 penalty units (GH¢6,000) to A2 by August 30, 2024, which may be recovered by civil action. 5. In sentencing A1, the court considers the following mitigating factors: a) A1 is a first-time offender. b) A1 has five children below the age of 18 years that he must provide for. c) The two accused persons are family members. 6. The court also considers the following aggravating factors: a) A1 being A2’s uncle, and knowing A2’s mother is deceased, broke the family bond and caused serious harm to his own nephew, in an attempt to dispossess his nephews and niece who are vulnerable, of a room and a hall; although A1 and his siblings each have about seven or more rooms that they profit from. Judgment The Republic v. Emmanuel K Addo Danquah & Malik Oke 22 Aug 2024 Page 17 b) The distribution of A1’s mother and A2’s grandmother’s estate is questionable in law. Disputes with the distribution of the estate should have been handled through the legal process instead of A1’s resort to violence. c) A1’s attack on A2’s head shows an intent to severely maim or kill A2 since head injuries have serious consequences. d) A1 after severely wounding his own nephew A2, attempted to deflect the blame by portraying A2 as an unstable smoker and alcoholic person who threatened his family. e) A1’s attack on A2, has caused A2 severe injury which is not fully revealed because A2 is financially unable to seek full treatment. f) It is necessary to set a deterrent for persons who seek to amass inheritances unto themselves by defaming and causing harm to other persons for reasons of greed and prejudice. Prosecutor: Chief Inspector Opoku Aniagyei Counsel for A1: None Counsel for A2: None (SGD) DORA G. A. INKUMSAH ESHUN CIRCUIT COURT Judgment The Republic v. Emmanuel K Addo Danquah & Malik Oke 22 Aug 2024 Page 18