Case of the week: State v. Otchere and others

High Court · [1963] 2 GLR 463 · Ghana

Introduction

This case relates to the Kulungugu grenade attack on Dr. Kwame Nkrumah in 1962 and the trial of the persons behind that attack. The trial became a test case for the meaning of conspiracy and the weight of confession Statements in Court.

Facts

During a school function near the Upper Volta border, a hand grenade was thrown at President Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, injuring him and killing schoolchildren. Upon investigating the incident, some senior political figures – including Robert Benjamin Otchere, Yaw Manu, Tawia Adamafio, Ako Adjei, and Hugh Horatio Crabbe were made to stand trial for treason (the crime of attempting to overthrow the government or kill the Head of State) and conspiracy.

The case against Otchere rested on several confessional statements in which he admitted knowledge of the conspiracy and its link to grenades, though he later insisted these were made under duress and during mental strain. Yaw Manu was connected to the plot through letters written under the pseudonym “L. Desimus,” which the court determined were his. These letters showed his awareness of the conspiracy and attempts to secure money in return for information. Adamafio, Ako Adjei, and Crabbe were accused of acting as local agents in Accra, handling grenades and funds, though the proof against them was weaker.

All the accused denied involvement, claiming that the charges were driven by politics rather than fact.

Holding

The High Court found that the conspiracy to commit treason was proven. It emphasized that once a person agrees to an unlawful plot, liability extends to all acts done in pursuit of that plot, even if they were not physically present when those acts occurred. Otchere’s confessions were deemed voluntary and admissible, and Manu was found to have authored the incriminating “Desimus” letters.

 The grenade attack was treated as evidence that the conspiracy had been carried into effect. On this basis, Otchere and Manu were convicted of conspiracy and treason, while the other accused were acquitted.

Implication of the Decision

The judgment confirmed that conspiracy is itself a complete offence (an inchoate offence): guilt does not depend on being caught at the scene of the crime but on joining an unlawful agreement. It also reaffirmed that a voluntary confession alone can support a conviction, though corroboration strengthens the case.  

However, the decision also revealed the strong political undertones of the era. While it clarified important points of criminal law, it simultaneously raised concerns about judicial independence, as the trial involved high-profile political figures in the tense atmosphere of Nkrumah’s Ghana.

Significant Quotes

“A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only, it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and the act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced, if lawful, punishable if for a criminal object or for the use of criminal means.” – Korsah C.J citing Willes J. in R. v. Mulcahy (an Irish case)

Commentary/Insight

State v. Otchere and Others remains a landmark case at the intersection of law and politics. From a legal perspective, it shows how far-reaching conspiracy to commit an offence can be and how heavily courts may rely on confession Statements. From a historical perspective, it is part of the larger story of Kwame Nkrumah’s presidency, where triumphs like his birthday being honoured nationally stood alongside darker moments such as an attempt on his life.