Liberty Patriot Safes
Liberty Patriot Safes
|
|
Mosquito Magnet MM3300 Executive Mosquito Trap $849.99 Executive”Smart Technology” is the key to the advanced Mosquito Mag Executive Mosquito Trap. The easy-to-read LCD panel on the front of the unit offers enhanced diagnostics and 4 fuel savings modes that can extend the life of your propane tank up to 30 days.The sophisticated Mosquito Mag Executive also “learns” to differentiate days from nights and features a temp indicator that will automatically… |
|
|
Cannon Safe P40 Patriot Series 16-36 Gun Safe – Matte Black $1,243.62 With its massive 1in steel composite door 12-gauge unibody construction and ETL verified fire resistance the Patriot Series is the ultimate value for storing your valuable possessions. This safe provides high security and maximum interior versatility-even when floor space is at a premium. Safes are finished with a durable matte paint. Features: Massive 1in thick steel composite door Commercial gra… |
|
|
PYLE Waterproof Marine AM/FM/CD Player Receiver with 4 x 5.25-Inch Speakers and Splash-Proof Radio Cover $0.01 … |
|
|
Pioneer DEH-4200UB CD Receiver with OEL Display and USB iPod Control $200.00 Pioneer’s DEH-4200UB is an ideal way to upgrade your OEM system, offering playback of WMA/MP3/AAC files from disc or USB devices, optional direct iPod control, and plenty more. It also offers big-time opportunity on the upgrade front–easily add Bluetooth and HD/SAT Radio, or use the three pairs of preamp outputs to build a system with external speakers and amplification. Pionee… |
|
|
Kenwood Excelon KDC-X494 In-Dash CD/MP3/WMA/iPod Receiver with USB/Aux Input $159.95 Kenwoods KDC-X494 is a great solution for those who want an iPod-enabled CD receiver with room to grow. With direct control of iPod devices, WMA/MP3 playback from CDs or USB devices, convenient front-panel illuminated USB port/auxiliary input, and a 50W x4 MOSFET amplifier, it’s a powerful device. Add three preamp outputsfor system building and the ability to add SAT/HD radio, Bluetooth, or a CD c… |
|
|
Cortelco Kellogg Patriot Memory Desk/Wall Mount Phone Bk $31.62 - Cortelco Patriot memory corded telephone- 20# Memory locations- Receiver volume control- Data port- Directory card- Last number redial- Local hold with LED indication- Tone/pulse switchable- Wall mountable- Hearing aid compatible- Ringer volume control… |
|
|
Cortelco Kellogg Patriot Basic Desk/Wall Mount Phone Prl Gy $25.51 - Cortelco Patriot basic corded telephone- Volume control (ADA pliant)- Tone/pulse dialing (40/60 make/break) – Positive line disconnect – Ringer volume control – Flash (300/600 msec) – Hold with LED indicator – Redial- Hi/low/off ringer volume control- Fully modular- 90 Volt message waiting lamp- Visual ring indicator – Hearing aid patible – Desk/wall mountable – Directory card – Fully modular – … |
|
|
Cortelco 48044219064 219000-VOE-27F Patriot BLACK $26.45 - Cortelco Patriot basic corded telephone- Volume control (ADA compliant)- Tone/pulse dialing (40/60 make/break) – Positive line disconnect – Ringer volume control – Flash (300/600 msec) – Hold with LED indicator – Redial- Hi/low/off ringer volume control- Fully modular- 90 Volt message waiting lamp- Visual ring indicator – Hearing aid compatible – Desk/wall mountable – Directory card – Fully modu… |
Many people claim that our liberty is still safe; dose that in turn mean these quotes are incorrect?
“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”
-Thomas Jefferson-
With all do respect we as a society are not well educated to how and why things work. Apathy and pessimism drives contempt.
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few.”
-Wendell Phillips-
Most of my generation thinks civics are good cars. If perused they might say that they vote therefore they have met there civic duty
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”
-Edmund Burke-
“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.”
-Thomas Jefferson-
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants.”
-Thomas Jefferson-
these quotes are quite correct and the problem with those who claim our liberty is safe – is that they make it unsafe in their complacency
the quote from wendell phillips is the most telling “Eternal Vigilance is the price of liberty” and he was so right
and voting while VERY important is only ONE aspect of that vigilance- our civic duty is more than that much much more. we must be involved in and with our government in order for it and our way of life to survive
The Real Robin Hood
A Rule of Law or Rule of Men? A Critical Evaluation of the Law and Practice in Ghana under the 1992 Constitution
- Introduction
The concept of “rule of law” has gradually developed through different philosophers like the Greek Philosopher Aristotle, Cicero, Karl Marx, Joseph Raz and Dicey. The theory of the rule of law became particularly important in England following the struggle between Parliament and the Crown in the 17th century particularly when Parliament gained supremacy. The British model of the rule of law has been credited to the 19th Century British Jurist, Albert Venn Dicey who first outlined the concept in his work, “Introduction to the study of the Law of the Constitution (1885). Dicey suggested that rule of law has three meaning:
(i) No punishment may be inflicted other than for a breach of the law.
(ii) Irrespective of rank and status all are equal under the law.
(iii) Rights and freedom are best protected under the regular law.
Later on, jurists from different jurisdictions expanded Dicey’s concept as a common standard of achievement. For example, Professor Geoffrey Wilson explained that, “the rule of law is not in fact a rule of law but rather a conventional obligation which lies…on government and the legislature”. Similarly, De Smith stated, “power exercised by politicians and officials must have a legitimate foundation…based on authority conferred by law”. He also stated that, “legitimate expectation is at the root of the rule of law and requires regularity, predictability, and certainty in government’s dealing with the public“. Jeffrey Jowell describes the concept as “a principle of institutional morality”. Sir John Laws suggests that the rule of law should be based on three central ideas, namely: “freedom, certainty and fairness”. Today the scope and dimension of rule of law is beyond Dicey.
Quite apart from individual States adopting Dicey’s concept of the “rule of law” as outlined above, international bodies have also recognized the concept and have given it a more extensive definition for universal application. For instance, at a colloquium held in the U.S.A (Chicago) in 1957 under the title “The Rule of Law as Understood in the West” it was agreed among participants, that fundamental human rights and fair hearing form an integral part of the rule of law.
Subsequently, the 1959 Declaration of New Delhiandthe Conference ofInternational Community of Jurists (an affiliate of UNESCO) have both recommended to States to provide political and legal guarantee for the rule of law in the following areas:
(i) ruling by a representative body accountable to the people;
(ii) a citizen who is wronged by the Government should have a remedy;
(iii) recognizing the minimum standards contained in the 1948 Universal
Declaration of Human Right and other such regional treaties such as the
absence of retroactive penal laws;
(iv) independence of the judiciary, including security of tenure, proper
ground and procedure for the removal of judges;
(v) justice for all and right to a fair trial: lawful detention, right of appeal, the presumption of innocence, right to legal advice and representation.
In Ghana, politicians, law-makers, public officials, and many others use “rule of law” as a slogan in their daily utterances but in the narrow sense (referring solely to equality before the law). But from the summarization of the various views presented above, it is obvious that the rule of law, as a concept, is rather heterogeneous. It is undisputable that there cannot be any one particular model in the world that would be most appropriate in the Ghanaian case. It is also obvious that as the concept continues to evolve, certain elements in the broader definition of the concept such as elimination of all forms of discretionary power in governance is impossible and undesirable for any government anywhere to achieve. Notwithstanding these realities, it is expected that at least governments and all people (irrespective of political or economic power, political opinion, religion, creed, or gender) should respect and obey their own constitution (which is a body of rules, regulations, norms, traditions and political ideas of the society in accordance with which the country is governed).
The following sections critically examine the legal and practical dimensions of rule of law in Ghana based on available facts, decided cases and observations. Not all the elements of the concept are considered practically useful in the Ghanaian case. The areas selected below are universally recognized today as minimum standard of achievement by all governments and are relevant in evaluating the rule of law in the Ghanaian setting.
2. Absolute supremacy of the Constitution and its enforcement
Article 1(2) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana provides that, “this Constitution shall be the supreme law of Ghana and any other law found to be inconsistent shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void”. It means that all laws, whether an act of parliament, legislative instrument, common law and equity or customary law, are subject to the Constitution and their powers and authority emanate from the same Constitution. It has a special ‘legal sanctity’ and a great symbolic value. Hence, there are provisions for its defence by all Ghanaians, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. To determine whether the constitution is actually accorded the supremacy that it deserves as provided by the constitution itself, we need to re-examine its enforcement amongst the citizenry.
As stated under Article 2(1) of the Constitution, “a person who alleges that (a) an enactment or anything contained in or done, under the authority of that or any other enactment or (b) any act or omission of any person inconsistent with or is in contravention of a provision of this Constitution, may bring an action in the Supreme Court for a declaration to that effect” In terms of the exercise of judicial power, the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court the exclusive and original jurisdiction in two areas, namely in all matters relating to the interpretation or enforcement of the constitution and the power to declare null and void acts of both Parliament and the Executive in contravention with the Constitution. But the Supreme Court is faced with problems associated with the operation of the current constitution.
It will be recalled that, in January 2010 the President of the Republic of Ghana, Prof. Atta Mills appointed a nine-member Commission chaired by Prof. Albert Fiadjoe to ascertain from the citizens their views on the operation of the 1992 Constitution. This initiative presented the first opportunity for assessing and reforming the current constitution and it is expected that, at the end of it all, the gaps, uncertainties, ambiguities, and errors in the Ghanaian constitution will be rectified to guarantee the kind of rule of law envisaged in Ghana.
3. Judicial independence and rule of law
Although the 1992 Constitution contains elaborate provisions safeguarding the independence of the judiciary, there are certain provisions, which place the judiciary at risk of political manipulation which in turn undermines the virtue of rule of law. The most important of them is the composition and empanelling of the Supreme Court. In particular Article 128(1) of the 1992 Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall consist of the Chief Justice and not less than nine other Justices of the Supreme Court. While there is a prescribed minimum Justices of the Supreme Court, the Constitution is silent on the maximum number of Supreme Court judges. This makes it possible for the President, as the appointing authority, to add to the number as and when he pleases. Where a president, with an overwhelming majority in the legislature is faced with a perceived hostile Supreme Court, Article 128(1) provides the incentive to neutralize the hostility by appointing more sympathetic Justices to the Supreme Court. Also the constitution of the Supreme Court to hear cases undermines the rule of law. The Supreme Court, under Article 128(2) is duly constituted by not less than five Supreme Court Justices except otherwise provided by article 133(2) of the Constitution (not less than seven Justices when reviewing its own decision). The provision does not elaborate on how or who should constitute the court. As a matter of practice (before the 1992 Constitution), some Chief Justices select Justices sympathetic to a particular cause to the exclusion of all others. Thus, in Dei v. Darke XII [1991] 2 GLR 318, the Supreme Court held that it had power to extend the time for filing statement of cases in the court. On the same day, the Supreme Court, in the case of In re Oppong (Deed); Mensah v. Bediako [1991] 2GLR 357, constituted by a different panel held that the court has no jurisdiction to extend the time limit. To avoid the recurrence of such situations under the current constitution, the sitting of the Supreme Court in panel should be abolished so as to enable the Supreme Court to sit always as a full bench. Also it should be made mandatory for each Supreme Court Justice sitting to write his or her own opinion.
Also, Article 144(1) and (2) provides for the appointment to the Supreme Court. In the case of the Chief Justice, the President in consultation with the Council of State makes the nomination. The provision requires that the President confer with the Council but he is not required to act in accordance with the advice of the Council of State. This is confirmed by Article 91(3) of the 1992 Constitution. With regard to other Justices of the superior courts, the president acting on the advice of the Judicial Council makes such nominations but here there is no certainty as to the binding nature of the advice by the Judicial Council. From the few examples stated above it is clear that quite apart from the political manipulations that make it very difficult for the judiciary to assert its independence, there are also gaps and uncertainties in the substantive law that impede the rule of law. This calls for reform in the laws to achieve a higher level of rule of law in this sphere. It is commendable that, the judiciary under the current Chief Justice, Mrs. Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, has seriously embarked on judicial reforms based on comprehensive strategic options: establishment of specialized divisions of the High Court (e.g. the commercial court, human rights court, land court, industrial court); review of outmoded procedural court rules; automation and mechanization of the courts; promotion of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR); capacity building and human resource development. The Chief Justice, speaking at the Kenneth Roemer Lectures on World Affairs at the State University of New York in 2010 confirmed that, “Before the judiciary began to vigorously tackle judicial reforms based on sound strategic options 12 years ago, all major stakeholders in the administration of justices had thought that the judicial system was failing and remedial steps had to be taken quickly to save it from collapse. The administration of justice was marked by frustratingly long delays in the resolution of cases, particularly commercial cases”, (see, Daily Graphic Report, April 10, 2010, p13).
Quite apart from the difficulties associated with the substantive law as discussed above, there is continuous government interference in the judiciary resulting in the public perceptions that the judiciary is not and cannot be independent as required by rule of law. A lot of cases tried by the superior courts between 1992 and 2011 bear adequate testimony to this public perception. Prior to the promulgation of the 1992 Constitution, popular cases such as Gbedemah and 28 Others v. The Interim National Electoral Commissions and John Bilson v. J.J. Rawlings, were believed to have been politically manipulated by the then PNDC government as all their decisions satisfied that regime. Just after the coming into force of the 1992 Constitution, the judiciary tried to assert its independence. Particularly, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) had prevailed against the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) government in a number of politically significant cases decided by the Supreme Court. Notable among them were: NPP v Electoral Commission (1993), which restrains the Commission and the outgoing District Assemblies from approving government-nominated District Chief Executives prior to the holding of new district assembly elections; NPP v. Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (which ordered the state-owned broadcasting station to grant opposition parties fair and equal access to its facilities to enable the parties present their views to the public); and NPP v Attorney-General (the Supreme Court held as unconstitutional the planned celebration of the 31st December coup as a public holiday by the then government); NPP v President Rawlings and AG, SC 1993 (whether the president can be sued or made party to a court suit).
The political turmoil in which many cases have been determined under the NPP government showed a continuity of political interference in the judiciary, confirming the earlier public perception. The following cases immediately come into mind when we talk of political interference in the delivery of justice: The Republic v. Selormey [2001-2002] 1 GLR 424; Tsikata v. Chief Justice and AG [20001-2oo3] 1 GLR 186; The Republic v CHRAJ, Ex-parte Dr Richard Anane [March 13th, 2007]; to mention but a few.
There were several court cases since the coming into power of the NDC government in 2008 that suffered from similar political interference and undermining, leading to public conclusion that “there is no rule of law in Ghana but a rule of men”. Notably, on March 29, 2011 the Accra Fast Track High Court acquitted and discharged 15 persons accused of allegedly conspiring and murder of Ya Na Yakubu Andani II, the Overlord of Dagbon and others in March 2002. The government quickly filed an appeal against the High Court ruling and indicated a review of the whole investigation process of the incident (as reported in the Daily Graphic, April 7, 2011). Such a challenge, though not legally wrong, would send a strong message to the world that there is political interference in the judicial independence which is an indictment in the justice system (the basic values underlying the system of law).
4. Arrest, detention and rule of law
The police force, generally anywhere, is concerned strictly with the preservation of safe communities and the application of criminal law equally to all people. Unfortunately in Ghana, this experience is marred by illegal arrests, detentions, cruel treatment of subjects, oppression leading to confession, which are the most common police related complaints. The constitution requires that a person is not detained more than 48 hours before being produced before Court, otherwise, the suspect must be released on bail, where bail is permitted for the offence. The law provides that force cannot be used unless the arrested person refuses to submit; an arrested person has the right to be informed immediately of the reason for his or her arrest in a language that the he or she understands; women in custody must be held separate from men and children from adults; and for any unlawful arrest, restriction or detention, the affected person is entitled to compensation.
There are a number of cases of misconduct by state security agents and police that are reported daily to the Commission of Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) and other bodies. In some instances, police officers deliberately circumvent the rule by using unnecessary force against peaceful demonstrators or torture suspects or deliberately make arrest on Friday night, which means that they can keep suspects in custody over the weekend. Some civilians also unlawfully use the police to arrest others for personal matters which have no criminal element. To ensure a rule of law, the police and security agents empowered to arrest, detain, interrogate or prosecute must operate within the law.
The rule of law does not end up with lawful arrest and detention. Rather, its full attainment requires strict application of court rules and the avoidance of unnecessary delay of cases in courts (i.e. commencement of action, entry of appearance, pleadings, discovery and inspection of documents, interrogations, interlocutrices, application for directives, trials, judgments and orders and execution of judgment). [On issues of delay and justice in Ghana, see for example, Bimpong-Buta S.Y. (1983), "Time for delivery of Judgment", GLR vol. xiii and vol. xiv 215-221; Afrimap Report of IDEG and OSIWA (2007), "Ghana Justice Sector and the Rule of Law", Dakar; Benson Ivy, "Fast Truck Courts not Fast Enough", The Chronicle, Accra, June, 2004].
5. Beyond reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence
The above two principles are considered universally as necessary elements of rule of law which nations have included in their criminal procedures as a standard of achievement. Ghana is not an exception in this regard and its application is not without problems and public misconceptions.
The expression “beyond a reasonable doubt” appears most often in the trial court’s instructions to the jury, which is generally told: the defendant is presumed to be innocent. The mere fact that one has been charged with a crime is not to be taken as any evidence of his guilt and the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, all the elements of the crime charged. While some courts have thought that the words themselves are sufficiently clear not to require any embellishment, a jury instruction about reasonable doubt usually using words such as, “grave uncertainty” and ”actual substantial doubt”, may violate due process, and thus a conviction obtained pursuant thereto cannot stand.
Many people have committed serious criminal offences in Ghana but are left free off the hock simply because the prosecution failed to prove beyond doubt as demanded by law. This situation has led to the general reluctance in enforcement of law and prosecution in Ghana, where even the science and methodology of investigation or collection of evidence is still conventional and at times erroneous. Consequently, wrong-dowers in the Ghanaian society are often subjected to instant justice involving beating and mob lynching in avoidance of going through the ordeals associated with proving one’s case beyond reasonable doubt.
The so called “presumption of innocence” is actually not a presumption at all in the legal sense that, an accused person is presumed innocent until the prosecution has proved the case against him or her beyond reasonable doubt (see, Woolmington v. DDP [1935] AC 462). It is not even a presumption in the popular sense of a thing which is more likely to be true than not, for statistically more people who are charged with crime are convicted as guilty than are acquitted as innocent. It is more properly said that the innocence of the defendant is assumed, which is generally taken to mean no more than that, the prosecution has the two burdens of proof discussed in this section: the burden of producing evidence of guilt in order to secure a conviction. The mere fact that one is accused is no evidence of his guilt, and that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
6. Discretionary power of State and rule of law
The courts may be reluctant to scrutinize the government closely in time of crises where even basic rights may be restricted by emergency legislations. Decisions taken to interfere with people’s property such as compulsory acquisition of land for the public good (e.g. government acquired lands for Universities, airports, stadia, public places of convenience, etc) are at times unreasonable and arbitrary. The question is how reasonable is the decision taken by a pubic authority? The difficulty today is how to settle the acceptable limits of discretionary power which is not fixed by law. The exercise of Emergency Powers in Ghana by the President under Article 31 of the 192 Constitution (and in accordance with The Emergency Powers Act, 1994, Act 472) is also of concern where constitutional rights are often violated (for example, freedom of movement and association). There is the need for political and legal safeguards by which the exercise of discretional power may be controlled to avoid arbitrariness and ultra vires (decisions or actions which are beyond powers conferred). By Dicey’s standard, laid down rules and procedures are preferred to discretion. This is because rules provide for uniformity, awareness of precise requirement as published and there is accountability of those who administer them.
The exercise of discretionary power is generally provided in Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which provides that:
“where in the constitution or in any other law that discretionary power is vested in any person or authority;
(a) that discretionary power shall be deemed to imply a duty to be fair and candid;
(b) the exercise of the discretionary power shall not be arbitrary, capricious, or biased either by resentment, prejudice or personal dislike and shall be in acceptance with due process of law; and
(c) where the person or authority is not a judge or other judicial officer, there shall be published by constitutional instrument or statutory instrument, regulations that are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution or that other law to govern the exercise of the discretionary power”. (e.g. the following two Supreme Court cases, for example, 68363333333 affirmed and expounded the principle of ‘fairness’: Aboagye v. Ghana Commercial Bank Ltd. [2001-2002] SC GLR 797 at 806; Awuni v. West African Examinations Council [2003-2004] SC GLR 471 at 498).
Article 23 of the same constitution also provides that, “administrative bodies shall act fairly and reasonably”. Fairness and reasonableness are, therefore, the two most important principles that underlie the exercise of discretionary power.
We cannot talk of rule of law in a society where the use of discretion by public authorities falls short of reasonableness and fairness. There are instances where public officials in Ghana have taken decisions and actions which adversely affect individuals and are found by the courts, in their review, as amounting to illegality (abuse of power), irrationality (unreasonableness) and procedural impropriety (failure to observe expressed procedural rules or the rules of natural justice).
7. Equality and rule of law
The question is, are all Ghanaians treated equally before the law as required in Article 2 of the 1992 Constitution? Dicey suggests that all citizens should be treated equally before the law. Therefore, as long as laws are applied equally, without irrational bias or unreasonable distinction, this aspect of the rule of law should be complied with.
No matter how attractive Dicey’s theory of equality before the law may appear in theory, there are obvious exceptions to the rule in the Ghanaian law and practice. There are privilege classes to whom the principle does not apply by virtue of their office and function (“functional necessity”). They enjoy aggregate of rights to enable them carry out their duty unhindered. The exceptions include the following:
(i) Article 57(5), provides that the President shall not, while in office as President, be personally liable to any civil or criminal prosecution in court. It means the President cannot be sued while in office. But the law did not state whether the President can sue or not while in office. In my opinion, once the president cannot be sued then he cannot also sue because that could result in a counter claim in a civil action. It implies that by virtue of his executive authority, he is unequal to ordinary citizens so far as prosecution and appearance before a court of law is concerned. The Attorney General is responsible for the institution and conduct of all civil and criminal cases on behalf of the President under Article 88.
(b) Diplomatic immunity (under the Diplomatic Immunity Act). Immunity from criminal jurisdiction and civil litigation extended to diplomatic representatives.
(c) High Court Judges are immune from civil litigation for actions falling within their official jurisdiction. No legal action can be brought in respect of anything said or done by a judge in the exercise of his or her judicial functions.
(d) Parliamentary privilege (parliamentarians cannot be sued for defamation in respect of proceedings in Parliament, Arts 115-120 of the 1992 Constitution).
(e) Special powers reserved for agents of government (e.g. the police, public health inspectors, customs officers etc.), not enjoyed by ordinary member of the public.
(f) Practical differences – arguably the extent to which one may obtain legal redress may be limited to one’s age, sex, profession, or social status.
It must not be presumed that the above categories of public officials are above the law and above reproach. So far as they are accountable to the people under the law for their actions, decisions and performance of duty, they remain equal before the law. Public accountability has slightly improved since the enactment of several laws including the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663); Financial Administration Act, 2003 (Act 654) and Internal Audit Agency Act, 2003 (Act 658). Accountability is one of the tests of good governance and rule of law. Hence, we need to reduce government control of institutions responsible for public accountability and empower them to operate without fear or fever.
8. Constitutional rights and rule of law
The right and duties of citizens are expressly codified in the Constitution. Thus, in Ghana, anyone wanting to know their constitutional rights must look at Chapter Five of the 1992 Constitution relating to fundamental human rights and freedoms. Other rights can be found under Chapter Six concerning basic human rights such as the right to work, the right to good health care and the right to education which are expressed under the Directive Principles of State Policy; and under Chapter Seven relating to the right to vote. These rights are supposed to be protected by the courts as provided by the Constitution under Article 33. In line with Dicey’s point of view there is advantage in this sort of constitutional arrangement: For every right enjoyed by a Ghanaian citizen there is a corresponding remedy. For example, since the law provides that there is freedom from arbitrary arrest, if a police officer seeks to arrest an individual arbitrarily, a court will provide a remedy – there is compensation in the form of damages in civil action for false imprisonment.
Rule of law also requires that prisoners are treated fairly and their human rights equally protected by the State. Prisoners in Ghana are often deprived of their human rights, legal rights and residual liberty. In a Supreme Court ruling in March 2010, prisoners in Ghana have the right to be registered to vote in public elections and referenda. The court declared that section 7(5) of the Representation of the People Law (PNDCL 248) – which imposed a residency requirement or qualification under which convicted prisoners were deemed unqualified – clearly violates a fair number of prisoners’ rights to humanity or dignity, right to equality and non-discrimination and most importantly, the right to vote. This law was found to be inconsistent with Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution which confers “a constitutional right to vote” on all Ghanaian citizens except those below 18 years and persons of unsound mind. This decision has given hope to more than 13,000 prisoners across the country though implementation by the Electoral Commission is delayed for some reasons (such as, long process of legislative reforms in the electoral laws and logistics problems).
In 2008 “The Justice for all Programme”, an initiative of the then Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr. Joe Ghartey, was instituted. The programme was to ensure speedy trials and free people who have been on remand unjustifiably for years whose offences are considered as misdemeanor (e.g. stealing, assault, abortion, threat to harm) and second degree felony (e.g. negligently causing harm to a person, defrauding, extortion, forgery). In most cases, the complainant was that they either lost interest in the case or has persistently refused to appear before the court to testify leading to frequent adjournments. In some, the prosecutors have failed to institute legal proceedings or to continue. Some also are in custody because they have been granted bail but cannot satisfy the bail terms. In records as in Mach 2008, there were about 3,000 people on remand in the country’s prisons awaiting hearing longer than the law permits, which is an abuse of their human rights.
9. Conclusion
As a nation with an objective to attain rule of law, we must strive to ensure that the laws alone govern us and not the wishes of powerful men. This calls for the following recommendations:
- Adequate control of the executive to prevent abuse of power
- Right to representation and reasonable government ( Legislature not to pass discretionary laws with reference to individuals or minority groups)
- The principle of the rule of law should be of assistance to judges in the area of statutory interpretation and be used as a rule of evidence whereby everyone is, prima facie, equal before the law.
- One is entitled to legal aid under the regulation of parliament as provided under article 294 of the Constitution is provided under but its application is without any serious impact on the increasing poor population. There is the urgent need for a comprehensive Legal Aid Scheme to provide free legal aid to meet the cost of wok usually done by lawyers. Expenses could be paid out of a legal aid fund drawn from grants and damages recovered in litigation and contributions by assisted persons. Free aid should be available to persons whose disposable income and capital do not exceed a certain sum.
- The courts are the ultimate custodians of the right and liberties of all Ghanaians and therefore must be allowed to function according to law and due process without political manipulations or politicization of legal matters.
About the Author
The Author is a Senior Lecturer at the Law Faculty of KNUST, Kumasi, Ghana.