High Court to rule on Charles Antwi’s conviction on August 31
The Human Rights High Court has set August 31, 2015 to give a ruling on an application filed by a human rights lawyer invoking the jurisdiction of the court to quash the conviction and sentence of Charles Antwi, the man who said he wanted to kill the President at a church in Accra.
Advertisement
Mr Francis Xavier-Sosu, counsel for Antwi, filed a certiorari seeking a declaration from the High Court to set aside the charges and entire proceedings of the case, as well as Antwi’s conviction and sentence by the Accra Circuit Court on July 28, 2015.
He said the court, presided over by Mr Justice Francis Obiri, committed an error in law on the face of the record when he took the plea of the applicant, who was incapable of understanding what he was pleading for.
“This error goes to the root of the court’s criminal jurisdiction as to make its conviction on the said plea a nullity,” he stated.
Opposition
However, the Attorney-General (A-G) opposed the certiorari application by Antwi’s counsel on the grounds that the right procedure to use to set aside the applicant’s sentence was by an appeal for the re-hearing of the case.
A State Attorney, Mrs Evelyn Keelson, said an appeal process would ensure that fresh evidence and other relevant information would be adduced to ensure a re-trial of the accused, during which “we will establish Antwi’s lunacy”.
“If the High Court grants the certiorari and the accused is set free, the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) can re-arrest him for another retrial to start all over again,” she stated, adding that the state had already commenced an appeal process at the Appeal Court.
“We have been asked to submit our written summary by September 3, 2015 for the hearing to begin,” Mrs Keelson informed the court, presided over by Mr Justice K.A. Okwabi.
Other Trending Stories
Judge’s query
Pending the outcome of the appeal, Mrs Keelson said the accused should remain in prison custody, since his “conviction is right but his sentence is wrong, as it is in excess of the terms warranted by the law”.
According to her, the state had arrived at a conclusion that Antwi was of “unsound mind and should remain in custody”, a submission that baffled the trial judge to query the state.
“Should the accused person remain in prison pending the outcome of the Appeal Court?,” the judge asked, but Mrs Keelson suggested that “he should remain in custody”.
Mr Justice Okwabi again asked if the Circuit Court had the jurisdiction to impose the 10-year imprisonment on the accused when he appeared before it, saying that the court exceeded its jurisdiction.
“Excess jurisdiction can sometimes lead to lack of jurisdiction and excess jurisdiction leads to gross jurisdiction,” he said.
He queried the state for failing to see some unusual composure of the applicant at the time of his trial.
“When a man pleads not guilty and later changes his mind, then there is a problem somewhere. Is the state saying that there is nothing unusual with a man who says he wants to kill the President with a gun he had? He pleads for leniency and forgiveness and still says he wants to kill the President.
“Does not the state think something should have prompted the court and the A-G about him? At least the judge could have observed Antwi’s utterances, demeanor prior to sentencing him,” he stated.
That argument prompted the court to call and elicit the advice of the acting Chief Executive of the Mental Health Authority, Dr Akwasi Osei, on the proper custodial procedure to be resorted to.
“In the current state of the accused, he should be taken to the custody of a psychiatric hospital where we can establish whether he should remain at the hospital or in prison custody,” he suggested to the court.
Remedies
He prayed the court to make a declaration that the applicant be subjected to mental health treatment in the facilities of the interested parties in the mental health hospital under the supervision of the Mental Health Tribunal.
In the absence of such a tribunal, he said, Article 34 of the Constitution gave the High Court the jurisdiction in all matters to make an order and supervise the medical examination of a person standing trial.
Advertisement
He also asked the court to declare that the plea of the applicant taken at the Circuit Court was wrongful in law because Antwi did not have the mental capacity to plead to the charge.
“A declaration that the failure of the Circuit Court to afford the applicant the opportunity to have psychiatric evaluation before taking the plea constitutes a fundamental breach of the rules of fairness in dealing with a person with mental disorder,” he stated.
He said if the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) had done its work well and put all the appropriate facts before the Circuit Court, “the real state of mind of the applicant would have been known and would have followed the due law”.
Earlier, another State Attorney, Mr Richard Gyambibi, had told the court that on the face of the record, there was nothing to show that the accused was of unsound mind.
Advertisement
“We agree that sentencing the applicant to 10 years’ imprisonment was not warranted by law and in our view the sentence was wrong,” he stated.