With due deference to the learned circuit court judge, we must point out that his ruling does not show that he appreciates the principles discussed in the Wemah case (supra). That case showed the difference which exists between the offences of corruption and extortion by a public officer, and emphasized that an essential element of the offence of extortion by a public officer is the demanding or obtaining money under the colour of a public office which he holds. It means therefore that a charge of extortion by a public officer must aver: (i) the holding of a public office and (ii) the demand or receipt of money made under colour of the said public office.
There are two types of extortions under our Code: one is extortion under section 151 of Act 29 and the other is extortion under section 239 of the same Act. The first is extortion by means of threats, the second is extortion by a public officer or juror. That being the case, a count in the information or charge which merely states the offence as “extortion” without further words to show the specific offence of extortion with which a person is charged, is inherently bad, as it violates subsection (1) of section 112 of Act 30, which requires that a charge should state “the specific offence with which the accused person is charged.” Therefore by reason of the failure to specify the offence of extortion charged, each of the four counts is bad.
