REPUBLIC VRS OTOO & ANOTHER (02/2023) [2024] GHACC 198 (15 March 2024)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GHANA HELD AT CAPE COAST CENTRAL REGION ON FRIDAY 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE H/H DORINDA SMITH ARTHUR, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE. SUIT NO. 02/2023 THE REPUBLIC VRS 1. GEORGE OTOO 2. ALHASSAN SHERIFF JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION [1] The Accused persons were arraigned before this Court on August 11 2022 for the offences of Unlawful Possession of Narcotic Drugs Contrary to Section 37(2)(a)(b) of Narcotic Control, Commission Act, 2020 (Act 1019). [2] The Forensic Science Laboratory of the Criminal Investigation Department of Ghana Police Service test report dated 29th March 2022 stated that all the exhibits tested positive for Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, Cannabinol, and Cannabidiiol all active ingredients in Cannabis and has a net weight of 732.80g and 681.05g. [3] The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges preferred against them for which reason the prosecution assumed the burden of proof and must prove the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with Section 11(2) of the Evidence Act 1975 NRCD 323 which 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 will find the existence of the facts beyond reasonable doubt.” Page 1 of 20 [4] Further, Section 13(1) of NRCD 323 provides that the standard of proof is nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt no matter the offence charged. See the case of Ampabeng vs. Republic [1977] 2 GLR 171 CA The prosecution in order to discharge the burden placed upon them called three witnesses and tendered thirteen exhibits in evidence. II. THE PROSECUTION CASE [5] A summary of prosecution witnesses’ evidence are that: D/Sgt Daniel Addah is the first prosecution witness (hereinafter referred to as PW1) and he testified that on 26/01/2022 at about 5:30pm he with another police officer by name Aboagye Bekoe Maxwell (hereinafter referred to as PW2) and personnel from Police Operations Unit upon intelligence received proceeded to Radio Central area behind MTN switch to clamp down on criminal activities within the area. He and PW2 were in civilian clothes so they went to the place ahead of the police operations unit to conduct surveillance and establish the persons engaging in particular narcotic activities. [6] He stated that he saw first accused person (hereinafter referred to as A1) holding some brown paper wraps of plant material and one brown sellotaped parcel of compressed similar plant material on his lap selling to second accused person (hereinafter referred to as A2). According to PW1, he approached A1 and feigned buying some of the plant material wraps and A1 suddenly pulled out one big compressed parcel of plant material wanting to sell it to me. He told him who he was and after he arrested him together with the plant material which is now tested as Cannabis. He continued that PW2 arrested A2 who was buying cannabis from A1. Page 2 of 20 [7] He stated that upon further search on A1, they found 1 yellow wrapped parcel of cannabis, one hundred and fifty-three wraps of cannabis, a pair of scissors, a kitchen knife, two radio sets and six lighters. [8] PW2 confirmed the evidence of PW1 and added that accused persons claimed ownership of the exhibits when they were interrogated upon arrest. [9] Police investigator D/L/CPL Daniel Gaikpa is the third prosecution witness (hereinafter referred to as PW3) repeated the evidence of other prosecution witnesses and added that upon search at the place the officers also retrieved on kitchen knife, a pair of scissors, six lighters and two radio sets. He tendered in evidence the investigation and cautioned statements of accused persons, covering letter from Ghana Police Service for the forensic report, the forensic laboratory report, photographs of the cannabis, the actual cannabis, photograph of accused persons with the exhibits, photograph of A1 at the scene, and photographs of the retrieved items. III. THE DEFENCE [10] A1 testified that he is an asthmatic patient who suffers severe attacks from time to time and he heard that weed seed together with pawpaw when blended, sieved, and boiled with water will help cure the asthma when he drink it. He stated that he enquired about where he could get some and he was shown a place at Kotokuraba so on 26th January 2023, he went there and he was not feeling well. He said he did not meet the person selling the weed seed so he decided to wait and he later saw the people running. He did not know what was going on so he stood there and the policemen came there and arrested him with A2. Page 3 of 20 [11] According to A1, the rest of the people fled and they conducted a search on him but did not find any item on him but they found some substance on the ground and he was accused of being in possession of same. He was sent to the police headquarters at Pedu with A2 and the police brought out all the retrieved items at placed them on a table and made him stand by it and they took pictures. He denied knowledge about the narcotics and said he has never smoked weed before in his entire life and he does not sell weed. [12] A2 testified that on 26th January 2021, he was going to the MTN office to register his sim card and he arrested by the police of being suspected to smoke weed. He said they searched him and found some substance which they suspected to be narcotic on the ground and they accused him and A1 of being in possession of the weed and sent them to the police headquarters at Pedu, Cape Coast. He denied saying he smoked or was smoking any alleged substance as being alleged. IV. EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE, FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPLICATION OF LAW [13] Section 37 of the Narcotic Control Commission Act, 2020 (Act 1019) states that; A person who commits an offence in subsection (1) (a) for use is liable on summary conviction to a fine imposed in accordance with the penalty specified in the Second Schedule and an additional terms of imprisonment specified in that Schedule if the fine is not paid or (b) for trafficking is liable on summary conviction to the fine and imprisonment specified in the Second Schedule and an additional term of imprisonment specified in that Schedule if the fine is not paid. Page 4 of 20 [14] And Section 113 of Act 1019 defines possess as follows: “Possess in relation to narcotics or psychotropic substance includes keeping or storing narcotics or having the narcotics in custody or under the control or supervision of a person or being part of a consignment to a person, and constructive possession; Possession for trafficking means the possession or control of a quantity of narcotics in excess of a quantity which can reasonably be used by an individual in a day; Possession for use means the possession or control of a quantity of narcotics drug or plant which does not exceed the quantity which can reasonably be used by an individual in a day. [15] In respect of the ingredients of the offence of possession of narcotics, even though the law has changed, the elements remain the same and there are plethora of authority on this issue including the cases of ELLIS TAMAKLOE VRS THE REPUBLIC (SUIT NO:13/2/2009, (JUDGMENT DATED 17TH FEBRUARY 2010) AND LOGAN & ANOTHER VRS THE REPUBLIC [2007-2008] SCGLR, that the prosecution must prove that; i. The accused person had custody or control of the drugs. ii. He knew of the presence of the drugs; and iii. He knew of the nature and quality of the drugs possessed. See BONSU ALIAS BENJILO V THE REPUBLIC [2000] SCGLR 112 at 123 [16] Consequently, the essential ingredients of the offenses of possession of narcotic drug are that: i. Accused persons had custody or control of the drugs. ii. They knew of the presence of the drugs; and iii. They knew of the nature and quality of the drugs possessed Page 5 of 20 To satisfy the court with a conviction for both charges, the prosecution must prove the aforementioned three ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. I. THEY HAD CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE DRUGS [17] The evidence of prosecution established that A1 and A2 were together when they were arrested with the narcotics as contained in exhibit D and E series. A1 was holding some of the narcotics and A2 was seated right in front of him with some of the narcotics in a bowl. [18] Also, that A1 was cutting the compressed Indian hemp with a scissors and A2 was wrapping and putting the wrapped cannabis in a bowl. [19] In REPUBLIC V MUNKAILA [1996-97] SCGLR 445 the court decided that: A person is said to be in constructive possession or joint possession of an object if he has control over the other person in physical control or article at his disposal, control or otherwise. The actual manual possession or touch of the goods by the prisoner, however, is not necessary to the completion of the offence. It is sufficient if the prosecution can prove that the article was in the possession of a person over whom the defendant or accused had control so that the article would be forthcoming if he ordered it: See RV SMITH DEARSLEY AND PCC 494; R V GLEED (1917) 12 CR APP. R. 32a and Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (36th ed.) at 780 at para 1532. [20] Here, PW1 and PW2 are undercover police officers who were not in uniform and so PW1 was able to approach A1 that he wanted to buy cannabis and A1 offered to sell him, took a bigger parcel of cannabis and asked how much he wanted and it was at that moment that PW1 disclosed his identity to A1 and arrested him on the spot with the Page 6 of 20 cannabis and other items. If A1 was not in control of the drugs, he would not have asked PW1 how much he was buying. He was holding the drug in his hands and asked how much PW1 was buying because he had physical possession and control of the drug. [21] PW2 confirmed the evidence of PW1 as he was with him and also not in a police uniform and he arrested A2 with the wrapped narcotics which were in a bowl in front of him. According to PW1 and PW2 the accused persons were alone at the spot with the narcotics and other items when they were arrested. The remaining items which are the pair of scissors, a kitchen knife, two radio sets and six lighters aside the drugs show that A1 was into business of selling cannabis. The scissors confirms PW1’s evidence that A1 was cutting the compressed cannabis with the scissors. [22] It is noted that the test report dated 29th March 2022 stated that all the plant material exhibits which were retrieved from A1 and A2 tested positive for Delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol, Cannabinol, and Cannabidiiol all active ingredients in Cannabis and has a net weight of 732.80g and 681.05g. [23] The test result was not discredited by defence and the court accepts the report as the true content of the drugs retrieved from accused persons. Under cross examination PW1 answered among others the following questions: Q. I am putting it to you that A1 was never in possession of the 8 and 153 wraps as you are alleging. A. He was holding them and even after arresting him at the scene he tried to bribe me with the amount of Ghc1000 which I refused. Page 7 of 20 Q. I am putting it to you that A1 had only come there and never in possession of the said 153 wrapped substance. A. I arrested him with the yellow wraps and the 153 wraps in his hands. When I got there he asked me how much I am buying so I then introduced myself as a police officer and that he is under arrest and that was when he tried to bribe me. Q. So will I be right to say that your evidence in paragraph 5 of your witness statement is false where you say some other people. A. I still stand by my word that A1 was selling narcotic drugs and A2 was with him seated under the umbrella and I have a photograph of them. I even have a photograph of him taken a month earlier. I did surveillance on him for more than a month before his arrest. Q. A2 had only come there and was never in possession of any narcotic either for use or otherwise. A. A2 was sitting right in front of A1 with some cannabis in a bowl right before him counting. Q. I again put it to you that A2 did not use any narcotic substance on that day that he was arrested. A. He was sitting right in front of A1. When A1 cut the compressed drug, he will wrap it and put it inside the bowl. [24] It can be gleaned from the answers that the evidence of prosecution witnesses were not discredited under cross examination but the questions threw more light into what actually happened at the scene. It was revealed that A1 had been under police surveillance for more than a month and PW1 knew who he was as the person who sells narcotics at that spot before he was arrested that day. Page 8 of 20 [25] Prosecution tendered in evidence a picture taken by PW1 earlier during his surveillance which even though does not show the face of A1, shows his body with some narcotics close to him. [26] All the same, A1 was found holding compressed narcotics and cutting them into pieces where A2 was wrapping them and putting into a bowl counting. The narcotics were with them. A1 being in possession and control of the narcotics asked PW1 how much he was buying. [27] Thus the court accepts the evidence of prosecutions wholly and finds as a fact that A1 and A2 had custody or control of the narcotic drugs when they were arrested by PW1 and PW2. II. THEY KNEW THE PRESENCE OF THE DRUGS [28] Prosecution was able to sufficiently prove that not only were the accused persons in physical possession or control of the drugs but also they knew of the presence of the drugs. [29] From the evidence of prosecution, the accused persons knew the presence of the cannabis they were dealing with. A1 was holding the compressed cannabis, cutting and A2 was wrapping and counting into a bowl. A1 brought out a bigger parcel when PW1 went and A1 asked PW1 how much he was buying. [30] In the Supreme Court case of AMARTEY VRS THE REPUBLIC [1964] GLR 256 AT 26, it was held that mere physical possession without knowledge of the nature and quality of the article possessed is no offence. Page 9 of 20 [31] For the prosecution to succeed under this Section, the Supreme Court emphasized as per Her Ladyship Bamford-Addo JSC in BONSU ALIAS BENJILO case (supra) held that; “To prove the charge of illegal possession of drugs it must be shown that the Appellant not only had physical possession, but also knew the contents of the parcel.” [32] Therefore to succeed on such a charge, the prosecution must prove legal possession; that is, in addition to proving physical or constructive possession, they must go further to lead evidence which establishes that the accused persons had the requisite knowledge, or evidence from which it will be reasonable to presume that the accused persons proved to be in possession or well knew or ought to have known that the article they possessed was cannabis. [33] Here, A1 and A2 were alone doing their business of cutting and wrapping the compressed cannabis. A2 is presumed to be a buyer and he was wrapping and counting the quantity of cannabis A1 was giving to him. Both knew of what they were dealing with as they were holding, cutting, and wrapping the cannabis. [34] It is noted that possession must be voluntary in order for the offence of possession to be complete. This is because without the voluntary nature of possession, mens rea will not meet actus reus as a person may be found in possession of narcotics under duress, force, or through fraud. [35] When PW1 and PW2 went there, A1 and A2 were not under duress or force by anybody but they were found voluntarily transacting their business and A1 asked PW1 how much he wanted before he was arrested. A2 will only go there to buy if he knows of what A1 is selling and what he needs. Thus, A2 also knew of the content of what he was buying. Page 10 of 20 [36] According to PW1 under cross examination, A1 offered Ghc1000 to bribe him when he disclosed his identity. A1 offered to bribe PW1 because he knows what he was dealing in is illegal and he wanted a way out by bribing the police who unfortunately are known to be potentially corrupt. He thought he could corrupt PW1 but his illegal and corrupt actions were futile. [37] Therefore, the court finds as a fact that A1 and A2 knew of the presence of the cannabis when they were arrested by PW1 and PW2. III. THEY KNEW OF THE NATURE AND QUALITY OF THE DRUGS POSSESSED. [38] Prosecution provided cogent evidence to prove that accused persons knew of the nature and quality of the drugs they possessed. They both knew the drug is cannabis and they both knew the plant materials are not any other plant than cannabis. [39] In BONSU ALIAS BENJILO VRS THE REPUBLIC [1999-2000] 1 GLR 199-236 the Supreme Court held that prosecution must prove that not only was the accused person in physical possession of the drugs but also knew of the contents in the parcel. [40] Here, physical possession alone would not be considered as sufficient prove of possession of narcotic drugs unless there is evidence establishing that accused persons knew well or ought to have known that the drugs they were in possession of were narcotics and in this particular instance cannabis. See MOHAMMED IBRAHIM KAMIL V THE REPUBLIC (2010) DLSC4146 Page 11 of 20 [41] According to prosecution witnesses, A1 was holding compressed cannabis and cutting it for A2 to wrap it. A1 offered to sell some to PW1 and asked him how much he wanted. The court can safely infer from the conduct of the accused persons by transacting business in cannabis that they knew the nature and content of the drugs they were dealing with. When PW1 went, A1 brought out bigger compressed cannabis and asked him how much he wanted to buy. [42] He knew how much A2 was buying and knew he would have to get PW1 some from a different package that is why he brought out that bigger one. A1 knew the cost of what he was selling and how much it was worth. [43] According to PW1, when he disclosed his identity to A1, he quickly offered him Ghc1000 to bribe him meaning that he knew what he was transacting in is illegal. He knew or ought to have known that cannabis is a prohibited drug. Section 37(1) of Act 1019 states that; “ a person who, without lawful authority, proof of which lies on that person, has possession or control of a narcotic drug for use or for trafficking commits an offence.” [44] The section 37 above makes possession of a narcotic drug a strict liability and thus the burden in fact is on accused persons to prove that they possessed the cannabis lawfully either for use or for trafficking without that they commit an offence. [45] Prosecution tendered in evidence the investigation and caution statements of accused persons. They both admitted that they went to the ghetto to buy cannabis for Page 12 of 20 use. They both gave the benefits they allegedly derived from smoking cannabis. For A1 he uses it for his asthma and says it is the best remedy for it and for A2 he uses it for more energy and strength to enable him do his painting work. [46] Even though prosecution led evidence to show that A1 was the person selling, the investigation and caution statements of accused persons confirmed that they both knew the nature and quality of the drug they possessed from their statements. They were both arrested by the police at the crime scene and both knew what they were getting or had was cannabis. [47] It is noted that the investigation and caution statements of accused persons were admitted in evidence and not discredited by defence under cross examination. Therefore, the court find as a fact that accused persons knew of the nature and quality of the drug they possessed when they were arrested. [48] Also, for the purpose of whether A1 was in possession of cannabis for use cannot be correct as the quantity of the cannabis retrieved from the place totaling about 1.412g and 153 wraps of cannabis is much above the amount a person can use for a day. Hence, it is safe for the court to infer that A1 was in possession of cannabis for trafficking. [49] Did Accused persons raise a reasonable doubt? The burden of introducing evidence was shifted to the accused persons when they were called to open their defence or to raise a reasonable doubt and this is emphatically Page 13 of 20 covered under Section 17 of the Evidence Act NRCD 323. See also Commissioner of Police vs. Antic (1961) GLR 408. [50] Further, in the case of ALI YUSIF ISSA (NO.2) VRS THE REPUBLIC [2003- 2004] SCGLR 174 it was held that; “…even though an accused person was not required to prove his innocence during the course of the trial he might risk of non-production of evidence and or non-persuasion to the required degree of belief particularly when he was called upon to open his defence.” [51] Here, accused persons are required to lead evidence to either raise a doubt in prosecution’s case or discredit it. And especially where the charges preferred against them places a burden on them to prove their innocence accused persons are required to provide cogent and or credible evidence such that a reasonable mind would accept their evidence than the evidence of prosecution. [52] However, I do not find the evidence of both accused persons credible, they are not truthful witnesses. This is because the evidence of both accused persons have been weighed against that of prosecution witnesses and the court prefer the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to that of accused persons. [53] A1 testified that he is an asthmatic patient who suffers severe attacks from time to time and he heard that weed seed together with pawpaw when blended, sieved, and boiled with water will help cure the asthma when he drinks it. He stated that he enquired about where he could get some and he was shown a place at Kotokuraba so on 26th January 2022, he went there and he was not feeling well. He said he did not meet the person selling the weed seed so he decided to wait and he later saw the people running. He did not know what was going on so he stood there and the policemen came there and arrested him with A2. Page 14 of 20 [54] A1 evidence shows that he went to the crime scene to buy a prohibited drug, cannabis. He states that he did not meet the person selling the cannabis so he decided to wait. This evidence though cannot be correct depicts that he was with A2 alone at the crime scene when they were arrested. His account also mentioned that the police found the cannabis on the ground but not on him. [55] His account also confirms that the police found the exhibits at the crime scene and that he was present when they found it. How on earth will a person selling cannabis leave his goods and other items on the ground without supervision or not be present? [56] It can never be correct that there was any other person selling the cannabis aside A1. This is because from his own account, he was going to that place for the first time. He had not been there before as according to him, it was rumoured that someone sells cannabis at that place. He has not being there before and yet he was able to wait for that person at the very place cannabis is sold waiting for the person to come. [57] If A1 had alleged that the person was there but fled and left behind the cannabis that would have been more reasonable. But that did not happen because according to him he did not meet the person selling the cannabis and so he waited for him. And yet, the police was able to find cannabis in that quantity on the ground where he was waiting. [58] Also, from the cross examination, A1 said he has had asthma for two years and yet according to him it was the first time he was going for cannabis seeds but he was able to mention in his caution statement that cannabis is the best remedy for asthma. Page 15 of 20 [59] I have further considered his answer under cross examination that he does not know the name of the drug that was allegedly given to him to buy. If it was the first time he was going for cannabis to treat his asthma, then what drug has he been using for the entire two years? [60] This is the drug A1 says he does not know the name, and does not know the name of the nurse who wrote for him to go to the pharmacy and buy. [61] Under cross examination A1 answered among others the following questions: Q. I suggest to you that all those substances here been confirmed by exhibit C1 as cannabis are yours. A. It is true but the exhibits they retrieved from me are not mine. Q. How old are you? A. I am now 70 years Q. But when you were arrested you said 67 years. Q. In my Ghana card it is written 69 years. Q. How long have you had this asthma? A. For about two years. Q. Who told you that you have asthma. A. A nurse at Ohim. Q. Do you have anything to prove that you have asthma? A. No, I do not know the name of the nurse. Q. How were you treated? A. I was given a drug to buy from the pharmacy. Q. What is the name of the drug? Page 16 of 20 A. I do not know. [62] From the cross examination, the court inferred that A1 was not been truthful as he could not provide credible evidence to establish that he actually went to a hospital or clinic and was diagnosed by a medical officer that he has asthma. He could not tell the court the name of a drug he was given because he did not go to any clinic for any diagnoses, he was not given any drug to treat any asthma, and he does not know the name of any drug because he was not given any drug. He developed the story which does not exist to throw dust into the eyes of the court but he was not successful. He even lied about his age so he cannot be considered a credible person. [63] Moreover, the account of A1 and A2 as contained in their witness statements cannot be correct as same is contrary to their earlier statements given to the police which were not discredited. Hence their evidence is not worthy of credit. See STATE V OTCHERE [1963] 2 GLR 462 and MORIARITY V. LONDON CHATHAM AND DOVAN RLY 1870 LR 5 QB 314, per Lord Cockburn CJ. [64] Therefore, A1 could not raise a doubt or discredit the evidence of prosecution as the court finds A1 as not credible. [65] A2 testified that he was going to register his sim card at MTN and he was arrested. He stated clearly under paragraph 3 and 4 of his witness statement that he was going to the MTN office to register his sim card. However under cross examination his answers contradicted his witness statement such that he had gone to MTN and had spent more than an hour waiting and was returning Page 17 of 20 from there when he was arrested. His answers under cross examination showed clearly that his evidence in chief was totally falsehood and clearly afterthought. He also stated that the police found narcotics on the ground and he was accused of being in possession of it. [66] Here again, A2’s evidence depicts that the cannabis was retrieved from the very spot they were arrested and that they were present when the cannabis were retrieved. As earlier stated, his evidence in chief contradicted his statements and the court does not find him credible. [67] I have considered all the evidence on record and come to a firm conclusion that A1 sells cannabis at the spot near MTN mast at Kotokuraba where he was caught selling cannabis to A2 and was selling some to PW1 who was undercover police and so he was arrested. [68] I have considered accused persons’ caution statements, charge statements and all the exhibits and find that accused persons failed to discharge the burden of persuasion placed on them as they were not able to raise a reasonable doubt as to their guilt as required of them under Section 13(2) and 14 of NRCD 323 supra. V. DISPOSITION/ HOLDING [69] I find A1 guilty of the offence of unlawful possession or control of narcotic drugs contrary to Section 37(2) (b) and A2 guilty of unlawful possession or control of narcotic drugs contrary to Section 37(2) (a) and convict them. Page 18 of 20 Presentencing hearing. [70] I have considered the mitigating factors presented by Counsel for accused persons that the court should deal leniently with them due to A1’s age and the fact that A2 was there to buy for use and that A1 and A2 look remorseful. [71] I have considered also that accused persons are first time offenders even though the quantity of cannabis found on them are high. However, A1 is one of such peddlers that the Act is targeting since their business is costing the nation of her youthful productive years. Many lives have been lost or jeopardised due to the use of cannabis. [72] Nevertheless, I am of the view that accused persons should be given a chance to return to the community and demonstrate to the society that they have reformed by their incarceration and to contribute meaningfully to the community, society and Ghana at large. [73] I thereby sentence A1 for Count one fifteen (15) years IHL and in addition A1 to pay a fine of Ten Thousand Penalty Units in default A1 to serve Ten Years IHL. For A2 I sentenced him to count two to pay a fine of Three Hundred Penalty Units in default serve Ten Months Imprisonment. [74] With regard to the narcotic drugs, I make an order for the destruction of cannabis as contained in brown sellotaped parcel being 153 wrapped compressed cannabis and the with net weight/vol of 726.41g and 675.26g by the Environmental Protection Agency in the presence of the police investigator, the court registrar, one court clerk, a person from the FDB and all other representatives as listed under Section 108 of Act 1019. Case is hereby struck out as ended as accused persons are convicted and sentenced. Page 19 of 20 H/H DORINDA SMITH ARTHUR CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE KAFUI MOORE ASA FOR PROSECUTION PRESENT FRANCIS BOA ESSILFIE ESQ WITH OFORI ADDO AND RICHLOVE ASANTEWAA SAMPONG FOR ACCUSED PERSONS PRESENT. Page 20 of 20