Privy Council, 11th Dec.1939.
Privy Council Appeal No.
89 of 1938
This is an appeal by special
leave from a judgment of the
West African Court of Appeal
(Gold Coast Session)· dismissing
an appeal by the appellant
against his conviction on the
13th October, 1936, by the
Supreme Court of the Gold Coast
at the Assizes held at
Victoriaborg, Accra. The
appellant was tried upon an
information containing two
counts charging him with
offences against section 330 of
the Criminal Code of the Gold
Coast Colony (Chapter 29). The
first count charged the
appellant with unlawfully
publishing a seditious writing
of and concerning the Government
of the Gold Coast contrary to
section 330 (2)
(b)
of the Criminal Code. The second
count charged him with
unlawfully having in his
possession documents containing·
seditious writing of and
concerning the Government of the
Gold Coast contrary to section
330 (2)
(e).
The trial took place before the
Chief Justice of the Gold Coast
Colony sitting with three
assessors on the 7th, 8th, 9th,
lOth, 12th and 13th October,
1936. The appellant was
convicted by the Chief Justice
on both counts, and was
sentenced to pay a fine of £50
on the first count and, in
default of payment within 14
days, to be imprisoned for three
months. No punishment was
inflicted on the second count.
* Reported at 3
W.A.C.A. p. 104,
The appellant appealed to the
West African Court of Appeal
against his conviction. - The
appeal was heard on the 17th and
18th November and the 1st
December, 1936, and was then
dismissed.
The appellant petitioned His
Majesty in Council for special
leave to appeal, and this was
granted on the 28th July, 1938.
The writing :which was The
subject matter of the charges
was part of an article Signed
Effective" and published in a
newspaper circulating in the
Gold Coast Colony. The material
words as set out in the
information, together with
allegations as to the meaning
attributable to certain words·
and phrases, were as follows:-
"Personally, I believe the
European has a God in whom he
believes and whom he is
representing in his Churches all
over Africa. He believes in the
god whose name is spelt Deceit.
He believes in the god whose law
is 'Ye strong, you must weaken
the weak. Ye" civilised"
Europeans, you must "civilise"
the " barbarous" Africans with
machine guns. Ye "Christian"
Europeans, you must "
Christianise" the "pagan"
Africans with bombs, poison
gases, ete.'
"In the Colonies the Europeans
believe in the god that
commands' Ye administrators'
(meaning to include therein the
Government of the Gold Coast) ;
make Sedition Bill' (meaning to
include therein the Criminal
Code Amendment Ordinance No. 21
of 1934 of the Gold Coast) ; to
keep the African gagged. Make
Forced Labour Bill' (meaning to
include therein the Labour
Ordinance of the Gold Coast) 'to
work the Africans as slaves.
Make Deportation Ordinance'
(meaning to include therein the
Kofi Sechere Detention and
Removal Ordinance No. I of 1936)
, to send the Africans to exile
whenever they dare to question
your authority' .
" 'Make an Ordinance to grab his
money so that he cannot stand
economically. Make Levy Bill '
(meaning to include therein the
Native Administration Ordinance
No. 2:1 of 1936 of the Gold
Coast Colony) 'to force him to
pay taxes for the importation of
unemployed Europeans to serve as
Stool Treasurers. Send
detectives to stay around the
house of any African who is
nationally conscious and who is
agitating for national
independence and if possible to
round him up in a 'criminal
frame up' (meaning thereby a
criminal charge in which the
evidence is fabricated) 'so that
he could be kept behind the
bars' (meaning thereby prison)."
Section 330 of the Criminal Code
(now section 326 of the Criminal
Code 1936 Revision) is as
follows :-
Subsection (2) :
" Any person who--
(b)
prints or publishes by any such
act as is specified in Title
I8.any seditious words or
writing or
(e)
being found in possession of any
newspaper book or document or
any part thereof or extract
therefrom containing seditious
words or writing does not prove
to the satisfaction of the Court
that at the time he was found in
such possession he did not know
the nature of its contents shall
be liable
(i) for a first offence under
paragraphs
(a), (b), (c)
and
(d)
to imprisonment for two years or
to a fine not exceeding one
hundred pounds ....
(ii) for a first offence under
paragraphs
(e)
,and
(f)
to imprisonment for one year or
to a fine not exceeding fifty
pounds ....
Subsection (8) :
" 'A seditious intention' is an
intention-
(1) to bring into hatred or
contempt or to excite
disaffection against the person
of His Majesty, His heirs or
successors or the Government of
the Gold Coast as by law
established; or
(2) to bring about a change in
the sovereignty of the
Gold Coast; or
(3) to excite His Majesty's
subjects or inhabitants of the
Gold Coast to attempt to procure
the alteration, otherwise than
by lawful means. of any other
matter in the Gold Coast as by
law established; or
(4) t~ bring into hatred or
contempt or to excite
disaffection against the
administration of justice in the
Gold Coast; or
(5) to raise discontent or
disaffection amongst His
Majesty's subjects or
inhabitants of the Gold Coast:
or
(6) to promote feelings of
ill-will and hostility between
different classes of the
population of the Gold Coast:
It is not a seditious intention-
(a)
to show that His Majesty has
been misled or mistaken in any
of his measures; or
(b)
to 'point out errors or defects
in the government or
constitution of the Gold Coast
as by law established or in
legislation or in the
administration of justice with a
view to the reformation of such
errors or defects; or
(c)
to persuade His Majesty's
subjects or inhabitants of the
Gold Coast to attempt to procure
by lawful means the alteration
of any matter in the Gold Coast
as by law established other than
that referred to in paragraph
(2) of this sub-section ; or
(d)
to point out with a view to
their removal. any Privy.
matters, which are producing or
have a tendency to produce
feelings of ill-will and enmity
between different classes of the
, population of the Gold Coast.
Provided that none of the acts
or things mentioned in provisos
(a), (b), (c)
and
(d)
shall be deemed to be lawful if
they are done in such a manner
as to effect or be likely to
effect any of the purposes
(1) to (6) which are declared in
this section to be a
seditious intention.
seditious words are words
expressive of seditious
intention.
Seditious writing' includes
anything intended to be read and
any sign or visible
representation which is
expressive of a seditious
intention."
At the trial a plea of not
guilty was entered. The
appellant admitted the writing
and publication of the article.
His defence was that the article
was not seditious and that it
was not calculated to bring the
Government of the Gold Coast
Colony into hatred and contempt.
A great deal of evidence was
called as to the application of
the article to the affairs of
the Colony. Notwithstanding the
statements of witnesses for the
defence that they did not read
the article as having reference
to the Gold Coast Colony, it was
not really in dispute that the
appellant had the Government of
the Colony in view when he wrote
the article and that it referred
to legislation and events
generally in the Colony. There
was no evidence of any outbreak
of violence or of any
manifestation of hostility to
the Government of the Colony as
a result of the article.
The case presented by Counsel
for the appellant for their
Lordships' consideration was
that the prosecution could not
succeed unless the words
complained of were themselves of
such a nature as to be likely to
incite to violence, and unless
there was positive extrinsic
evidence of seditious intention.
The foundation for these
submissions was sought in the
summing up by Cave J. in
R. v. Burns
(16 Cox c.c.
355) quoted at length in Russell
on Crime (9th edition) pp.
89-96. Reference was also made
to a number of cases on the law
of sedition in English and
Scottish Courts, which, it was
said, supported the statement of
the law by Cave J. Their
Lordships throw no doubt upon
the authority of these
decisions, and if this was a
case arising in this country,
they would feel it their duty to
examine the decisions in order
to test the submissions on
behalf of the appellant. The
present case, however, arose in
the Gold Coast Colony and the
law applicable is contained in
the Criminal Code of the Colony.
It was contended that the
intention of the Code was to
reproduce the law of sedition as
expounded in the cases to which
their Lordships' attention was
called. Undoubtedly, the
language of the section, under
which the appellant was charged,
lends. some colour to this
suggestion. There is a close
correspondence at some points
between the terms of the section
in the Code and the statement of
the English law of sedition by
Stephen J. in the
Digest of Criminal Law
(7th edition), articles 123-126,
quoted with approval by Cave J.
in his summing up in
R. v. Burns.
The fact remains, however, that
it is in the Criminal Code of
the Gold Coast Colony and not in
English or Scottish cases that
the law of sedition for the
Colony is to be found. The Code
was no doubt designed to suit
the circumstances of the people
of the Colony. The elaborate
structure of section 330
suggests that it was intended to
contain as far as possible a
full and complete statement of
the law of sedition in the
Colony. It must therefore be
construed in its application to
the facts of this case free from
any glosses or interpolations
derived from any expositions
however authoritative of the law
of England or of Scotland.
In these circumstances, their
Lordships turn to the Code, and
they find nothing in the section
under consideration to support
the appellant's contentions.
"Seditious words," in the terms
of sub-section
(8), "are words expressive of a
seditious intention." By an
earlier definition in the same
sub-section, " , A seditious
intention' is an intention to
bring into hatred or contempt
... the Government of the Gold
Coast as by law established."
Their Lordships find these words
clear and unambiguous.
Questions will necessarily arise
in every case as in this case as
to the facts ,to which it is
sought to apply these
definitions. Fine distinctions
may have to be drawn between
facts which justify the
conclusion that the intention of
the person charged was to "bring
into hatred or contempt ... the
Government of the Gold Coast,"
and facts which are consistent
only with the view that the
intention was no more than, in
the words of a later part of
subsection (8), " to point out
errors or defects in the
Government of the Gold Coast."
It is quite another thing to add
words which are not in the Code
and are not necessary to give a
plain meaning to the section.
Nowhere in the section is' there
anything to support the view
that incitement to violence is a
necessary ingredient of the
crime of sedition, Violence may
well be, and no doubt often is,
the result of wild and
ill-considered words, but the
Code does not require proof from
the words themselves of any
intention to produce such a
result, and their Lordships are
unable to import words The King
into section 330 which would be
necessary to support the
appellant s argument.
The submission that there must
be some extrinsic The Lord
evidence of intention, outside
the words themselves, before
seditious intention can exist
must also fail and for the same
reason. If the words are
seditious by reason of their
expression of a seditious
intention as defined in the
section the seditious intention
appears without any extrinsic
evidence.
The Legislature of the Colony
might have defined" seditious
words" by reference to an
intention proved by evidence of
other words or overt acts. It is
sufficient to say they have not
done so.
For the reasons indicated this
appeal should be dismissed and
their Lordships will humbly
advise His Majesty accordingly.
|
