A convict who had his five-year sentence increased by the Court of Appeal to a further five years after completing his sentence has petitioned the Supreme Court for relief.
Mustapha Iddrisu has filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal against the High Court’s decision, in which he was sentenced to five years in prison for causing harm.
The Court of Appeal, however, decided the appeal two days after Iddrisu had completed his sentence and been freed from prison.
In its decision, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal increased Iddrisu’s sentence by five years, bringing it to ten years.
Read Also: No increment in NSS allowance yet despite rising cost of living
According to the legislation, an appeal’s court can either decrease or increase a sentence, or acquit a defendant if it finds him or her not guilty.
Supervisory jurisdiction
Iddrisu has invoked the Supreme Court’s supervisory jurisdiction with a certiorari application, urging the apex court to overturn the Court of Appeal’s ruling as a nullity and a miscarriage of justice.
The application is being heard by a five-member Supreme Court panel presided over by the Chief Justice, Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah, and included Justices Gabriel Pwamang, Nene Amegatcher, Gertrude Torkornoo, and Prof. Henreitta Mensa Bonsu.
Grounds
Iddrisu contends that his appeal was moot and that the Court of Appeal erred in law by increasing his sentence.
“The Court of Appeal wrongly exercised jurisdiction when it delivered judgment on an appeal that had become moot as there was no appeal pending at the time the court delivered the judgment, because the applicant had fully executed the sentence imposed on him by the High Court,” he argued.
Again, Iddrisu contends that at the time the Court of Appeal issued its ruling, there was no sentence to reduce or augment because he had completed the five-year sentence given by the High Court.
The certiorari application stated that “this has resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice against the applicant.”
Hearing
The matter was heard for the first time before the Supreme Court on October 25, this year, when the court granted the Attorney-General’s (A-G) request for an extension of time to answer to Iddrisu’s application.
Obeng Darko, Iddrisu’s lawyer, informed the court that his client had been returned to prison.
Justice Amegatcher then questioned counsel if his client would have taken advantage of the Court of Appeal’s ruling if it had gone in his favor, to which counsel replied that there would be no benefit because the term had already been served.
However, the panel reminded counsel that there was an advantage because the conviction may have been overturned and deleted from his client’s record.
The Chief Justice further informed lawyers that the appeal was still pending and that the Court of Appeal had a duty to rule on it.
The Chief Justice, on the other hand, stated that the matter was novel and that the two sides should file their legal arguments, including cases from other countries that had dealt with similar difficulties.
The hearing will resume on December 15.
SOURCE: GRAPHICONLINE
