Celebrity cases worth a recap : The rise and fall of Geeman, Jagger Pee

Geeman and Jagger pee appealed against their conviction per AGYEMAN@ GEEMAN & NYAME @ JAGGERPEE V THE REPUBLIC NO 7/98 (UNREPORTED) delivered on 19th November 1998.

Is allowance instantly strangers applauded

Did you know that Ghana had the likes of Ariana Grande, Michael Jackson, Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, Selena Gomez, Jennifer Lopez, and Elvis Presley in a pop star as far back as the 70s?

Way before the 1970’s Agyemang alias Geeman became a Ghanaian dance champion. As if that was not enough, the Ghanaian star proceeded to win the title of the best dancer in the world.

He was mostly described as the carbon copy of Michael Jackson due to his exact style and moves that one could hardly distinguish from the American star.

After all the tours, fame, moves, chilling and fun, the unfortunate happened which marked the lifetime downturn in the life of the great international star and eventually dimmed a growing career till today.

In this recap, we share insights into the story of his decline.


Nyame, alias Jagger Pee paid a visit to his friend, Agyeman alias Geeman, who was expecting a friend called Nadia.

When the lady, Nadia arrived in a Taxi, Geeman was supposed to pay for the Taxi fare which was 3000 Cedis(30 pesewas today). It however turned out per the driver’s insistence that he had rather decided to take 4000 cedis(40 pesewas today) and not the former.

Geeman, whom the lady had visited, decided to pay the latter, 3000 cedis(30 pesewas which the driver disagreed. In the course of the disagreement, Geeman is said to have thrown the cash forcefully into the Taxi.

The Taxi driver is reported to have departed and returned a few minutes later. When he returned, the driver is said to have collected sand beneath Geeman’s footprint which he believed the driver was going to use to charm him.

Geeman got infuriated by this incident that he rushed into his room and grabbed a pistol. All the while that Geeman was in his room, his friend Jagger Pee was holding on tightly to the taxi driver in order to prevent him from escaping.

Suddenly, Geeman appeared, gave warning shots and at the taxi driver, who died instantly.


Geeman had at this stage committed an offence against the person of the driver. He had committed murder which according to our Criminal Offences Act, 1960(Act 29) is punishable by death.

He was thus convicted and sentenced to death for the Taxi driver’s murder. Similarly, since Jagger pee qualified as an abettor under Ghana’s laws, he was also charged initially with abetment of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Agyeman aka Geeman and Nyame aka Jagger pee appealed against their conviction per AGYEMAN@ GEEMAN & NYAME @ JAGGERPEE V THE REPUBLIC NO 7/98 (UNREPORTED) delivered on 19th November 1998, the appellants contended that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on the law of murder and abetment thus occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

The appellate court held inter alia per Section 21(1)(a) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960(Act 29) which states;

1) Where a person abets a particular criminal offence or abets a criminal offence against or in respect of a particular person or thing and the person abetted actually commits a different criminal offence, or commits the criminal offence against or in respect of a different person or thing, or in a manner different from that which was intended by the abettor, and

(a) it appears that the criminal offence actually committed was not a probable consequence of the endeavour to commit, nor was substantially the same as the criminal offence which the abettor intended to abet, nor was within the scope of the abetment, the abettor is punishable for abetment of the criminal offence which the abettor intended to abet in the manner provided by this Chapter with respect to the abetment of criminal offences which are not actually committed.

The Court held per the supra that the killing of the taxi driver went beyond the scope of the joint enterprise by Geeman and Jagger pee since there was a clear intention only to assault rather than kill him.

The act of the second appelant, Jagger pee was held by the court as not intending to aid Geeman in killing the deceased thus Jagger Pee’s conviction was substituted with common assault and abetment of murder quashed.

Geeman’s conviction was however upheld and thus continued to serve his prison sentence like all those sentenced to murder because the death sentence had not been approved by any president since 1993.

Fortunately for him, a new light dawned on him in the person of former President John Agyekum Kuffuor when his name was included on the list of prisoners granted presidential pardon in 2009.


  • One needs to be measured in his/her actions in times of disagreement and arguments else you will find yourself in a grave bashing with the law.
  • Friends ought to be careful when actions are taken by colleagues in their presence. You can easily be an abettor under the law.
  • If an abettor abets an accused in the commission of an offence different from what was intended by the abettor and the criminal offence was actually not a probable consequence or within the scope of the endeavour, the abettor will be subjected to and punished for the abetment of the criminal offence which he intended per Section 21(1) (a) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960(Act 29).