Republic v Akosah [1975] 2 GLR 406

Material Facts:

The first accused was charged with attempted abortion contrary to Sections 18(2) and 58 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) . The only evidence incriminating him were confession statements, exhibits B and D, by which the first accused gave an injection to one Georgina Kissi with the intention of causing an abortion. The statements were admitted in evidence without objection. However, at the close of the case, counsel for the accused argued that the evidence should not have been admitted because the accused was not informed of his right to counsel when those statements were obtained, which is contrary to Article 15(2) of the 1969 Constitution.

Issues:

1. Whether or not evidence (exhibits B and D) obtained in violation of the right to consult counsel under Article 15(2) of the 1969 Constitution was admissible.
2. Whether or not the first accused can object to the admissibility of the statements after they were admitted without objection.

Holding:

1. Exhibits B and D were obtained in violation of Article 15(2) and are therefore inadmissible.
2. A party can object to the admissibility of evidence at any stage in the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi:

According to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1965), there is a rationale for excluding evidence based on confessions. The rationale is that:

If the law enforcement officers of the State are permitted to depend for convictions on confessions instead of on an independent source pointing to guilt, the administration of justice will be discredited and the law enforcement officers will be encouraged to use brute force to obtain confessions. The quality of the material supporting convictions in an adversary system of justice will suffer.

On the first issue in contention, the Court of Appeal in the case of Okorie v. The Republic [1974] 2 G.L.R. 272had decided that statements obtained in violation of Article 15(2) of the 1969 Constitution were inadmissible. That decision is binding on this court, and exhibits B and D are therefore inadmissible.

On the second issue, the case of Okorie v. The Republic (supra) similarly decided that if counsel does not object to the admissibility of evidence, “he is perfectly entitled to take it at any stage of the proceedings.”

Given that no other evidence was presented against the first accused, the jury is directed to return a verdict of Not Guilty as a matter of law.

Principles in Case:

1. Evidence obtained in breach of a constitutionally guaranteed right is not admissible (however, this position has been modified by the Supreme Court in Raphael Cubagee v. Asare and Others [2018] GHASC 14 (28 February 2018)).
2. Where a party fails to object to the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the law at the trial court, he may raise the objection on appeal.