A drafted section of a no case to answer submission addressing the residuary clause in section 7 of the National Drugs Control Act 2008.
3.5 Submission on the Phrase "Otherwise Deals in or With": Statutory Interpretation
The Prosecution seeks to rely on the residuary "catch-all" clause ofSection 7 of the National Drugs Control Act 2008, which criminalizes any person who "otherwise deals in or with any prohibited drug." We submit, with the greatest respect, that this phrasing—while intentionally broad—is not a license for the Court to criminalize mere proximity, professional oversight, or the failure to detect a cleverly concealed substance during the course of a lawful, supervised search.
The Ejusdem Generis Rule and Statutory Context: Under the long-standing principles of statutory interpretation, the phrase "otherwise deals" must be interpretedejusdem generis(of the same kind) with the preceding specific acts enumerated in Section 7, such as manufacturing, cultivating, importing, or exporting.
- Commerciality and Dominion: "Dealing" in its legal and linguistic sense implies a commercial or possessory transaction. It requires the Prosecution to prove that the Accused treated the drug as an object of commerce, or exercised a degree ofdominion and controlover it for an illicit purpose.
- The Legislative Intent: The legislature intended to capture creative methods of trafficking that fall outside the definitions of "importation" or "manufacture." It did not intend to capture the failed performance of a security duty. To "deal" in a drug, one must be part of the drug’s supply chain; an airport worker searching a bag is part of the state'sinterdictionchain, a diametrically opposed role.
The "Sovereign Function" Defense vs. Criminal Agency: In the instant case, the Accused persons were performing asovereign security function. Their contact with the bag belonging to Habib was mandated by their employment and the security protocols of Lungi International Airport.
- Capacity of Handling: They were "dealing" with a piece of luggage in their capacity as airport security personnel, not "dealing in drugs" as clandestine 1.
2.
3.
traffickers. To adopt the Prosecution’s interpretation would mean that every law enforcement officer, customs agent, or baggage handler who handles a container later found to contain contraband is "dealing" in those drugs. Such a construction leads to an absurdity—anargumentum ad absurdum—that would paralyze the operations of any international port of entry. The Prosecution must prove that the Accused moved from "dealing with a bag" to "dealing in drugs" by forming a criminal intent, for which there is zero evidence on the record.
Absence of the Essential Pillars of "Dealing": To sustain aprima faciecase of "dealing" in or with drugs, the Prosecution must establish two missing pillars:
(a)Intent to Facilitate ():The Prosecution has led no evidence of aquid pro quo—no evidence of a bribe, no promise of profit, and no communication records (CDR) linking the Accused to Habib or Juanis. Without a motive or a link, "dealing" remains a baseless accusation.
(b)Physical Handling for Criminal Ends ():The only physical handling established by the witnesses was the official search conducted in the presence of the ONS and Customs. Once that search yielded a negative result and the bag passed the checkpoint, the Accused persons' legal and physical interaction with the object terminated. The subsequent retrieval of drugs byJuanisis an independent act of "dealing" that cannot be vicariously attributed to the Accused.
Distinguishing Professional Negligence from Felony Dealing: We submit that "dealing" requires apositive act of assistance to the drug's criminal trajectory. At its very highest, the Prosecution’s case suggests that the Accused were perhaps not thorough enough in their search. However, in the hierarchy of law, is a civil or administrative matter for disciplinary boards; "Dealing in Drugs" is a high felony requiring a specific criminal intent.
- The Forensic Void: If the Accused were "dealing," one would expect to find their fingerprints on the drug wraps or trace amounts of cocaine on their persons. The total absence of forensic evidence reinforces the fact that they never "dealt" with the drugs because they never found them.
- Implications of a Wrongful Ruling: If this submission is not upheld, it would set a where any security officer who fails to detect a drug is automatically a drug dealer. This would shift the from the Prosecution to the Accused, requiring them to prove that their "failure to find" was not "intentional facilitation." Such a shift is contrary to Section 23 of the Constitution and theCriminal Procedure Act 2024.
Consequently, as the Prosecution has failed to show that the Accused persons exercised any criminal dominion over the substance, or that their handling of the bag was anything other than a lawful security function, the charge of "otherwise deals" cannot survive this submission.
4.
5.
6.