Respondent's Arguments

The Republic did not oppose the appeal. In a six-page written submission, it argued that the rape conviction was not supported in law. Rape is a first-degree felony under section 97 of Act 29, and section 2(2) of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30) requires such offences to be tried on indictment. The Circuit Court, it said, lacked jurisdiction and should never have taken the plea.

On the robbery count, the Republic pointed to the statutory minimum under section 149(1) of Act 29, as amended by Act 646: ten years, or fifteen where an offensive weapon is used. It also argued that the trial judge failed to weigh mitigating factors and imposed a harsh sentence. Since the Circuit Court could not try the rape charge, it added that the sentences could not run consecutively.

Court's Findings

Geographical jurisdiction: The Court first noted that, under Supreme Court authority, the appeal should ordinarily have been lodged at a High Court near the Kpando Circuit Court in the Volta Region. It nonetheless chose to hear the appeal. The Republic had already filed its submissions and raised no objection, and striking out the appeal would force the State to spend scarce resources responding a second time. Prison officials had also indicated that transporting inmates to Accra was more convenient than sending them to other regions, and the Nsawam Prisons High Court was reportedly not functioning. Finally, the appellant was unrepresented and appeared to have little means. The Court said it should be slow to shut the doors of justice on a citizen in such circumstances.

The rape conviction: Although the appeal was against sentence only, the Court held that it must first consider whether the conviction was sound in law, since jurisdiction is a fundamental issue that a court must examine even where no party raises it. Section 97 of Act 29 makes rape a first-degree felony, and section 2(2) of Act 30 mandates trial on indictment for such offences. The word "shall" is mandatory under section 42 of the Interpretation Act, 2009 (Act 792). Trial on indictment means trial by a judge with a jury or with assessors (section 204 of Act 30), preceded by committal proceedings in a District Court (section 181).

The Circuit Court, as a court of summary jurisdiction under section 43 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), cannot try rape and so could not accept a guilty plea to it. Relying on Forson v. The Republic, the Court reasoned that a conviction that is not in order cannot support a sentence. It set aside both the conviction and the sentence for rape as a wrong decision on a question of law.

Sufficiency of the record: The Court had ordered the Circuit Court Registrar to transmit the record of appeal on 20 November 2025, but the order had not been complied with. Relying on Republic v Court of Appeal; Ex parte Tsatsu Tsikata (No. 2), the Court held that the absence of the full record does not defeat appellate jurisdiction. Because there was no trial, only arraignment, plea, conviction and sentence, the certified proceedings and charge sheet attached to the petition were sufficient.

The robbery sentence: The Court found that no pre-sentencing hearing was held and that nothing on the record showed the trial judge considered any aggravating or mitigating circumstances or gave reasons for the sentence. Applying the factors in Banahene v. Republic and the Ghana Sentencing Guidelines, it held that the trial judge, bound by Supreme Court decisions under article 129(3) of the Constitution and section 2(3) of Act 459, erred in ignoring them. It also held that a failure to give reasons breaches the duty under article 296 of the Constitution to exercise discretion judiciously. Since an appeal is a rehearing, the Court then weighed the factors afresh.

In mitigation, the Court treated the appellant as a first-time offender, resolving any doubt in his favour. He was 21, and the principle of reformation calls for leniency toward young persons in first contact with the law (Frimpong alias Iboman v Republic). He also pleaded guilty at the earliest stage, saving state resources and sparing the victim from testifying, and he spent four days in custody before sentencing, a factor the trial court had not considered.

In aggravation, the Court found the offence was premeditated: the appellant gained the victim's trust, took a cutlass and led her along a bush route. The victim was a vulnerable woman and a stranger to the town. The items taken were apparently not recovered, and their modest value could not be assumed to be modest to the victim. The Court also took judicial notice of the rising prevalence of robbery among young persons, and of the high public revulsion at armed robbery, though it noted it lacked hard data.

With a statutory minimum of fifteen years for robbery with an offensive weapon and no statutory ceiling, the Court held that 25 years was manifestly excessive on these facts.

Decision

The High Court held that the appeal succeeded in its entirety. The conviction and 25-year sentence for rape were set aside as wrong in law because the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction.

Exercising its powers under section 30(a)(ii) of Act 459, the Court varied the robbery sentence from 25 years to 20 years. The consecutive 50-year term was thereby replaced by a single 20-year sentence. The Registrar was directed under section 331 of Act 30 to certify and transmit the decision to the trial court.

CLICK HERE TO READ/DOWNLOAD FULL DECISION