Mob Injustice

On the 30th of May, 2017, we woke up to the gruesome news that a Captain in the Ghana Army had been lynched by Citizens of a certain town. Several videos have emerged showing Citizens committing the dastardly act. The most shocking of them all is the part of the video that shows a woman standing over the lynched body of the Captain and lighting a match to burn his mutilated body. A lot of us are outraged by it and many are shocked at the sheer cruelty. I was not surprised. I have been writing and speaking on mob injustice for many years. I was also not surprised because the citizens who are outraged now about the dastardly act, have either committed a similar act, watched others commit a similar act without lifting a finger to stop or they have given their approval for such an act with the usual rationalization that thieves are equally evil and a nuisance to our society.

Today, we shall look at Chapter 5 of the 1992 Constitution and select a few Articles therein that speak about Human Rights. The first would be Article 13, Clause 1 which states, ‘‘no person shall be deprived of his life intentionally except in the exercise of the execution of a sentence of the Court in respect of a criminal offense under the Laws of Ghana of which he has been convicted’’. What this means is that it is only the Court of Law that can pronounce death on a man. That even the Court of Law can only pronounce death after the accused person has been charged with an offense and convicted of the offense and the sentence for that offense is the death of the accused. No other person or persons, regardless of the rationalization they have, in spite of the pain that may have been occasioned them by an act of a criminal, can choose to take the laws into his own hands and take the life of a human being.

Another important Article is Article 15, Clauses (2) (A and B) and they state as follows, ‘‘no person shall, whether or not he his arrested, restricted or detained, be subjected to:

  1. ‘‘Pain, torture or any other cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’’.
  2. ‘‘Any other condition that detracts or is likely to detract from his dignity and worth as a human being’’. In the video, the people beat up the Captain until he died. In essence, they tortured him. They took away his dignity by stripping him naked and even at his death, the pictures show that he had been violated and totally undignified. Shortly after this, reports were given that the Military had descended on the town. Soon thereafter, pictures began to emerge of the Military either exacting vengeance or conducting investigations to identify the perpetrators. Whichever way you look at it, you cannot deny the fact that the town folk has also suffered some form of abuse. Much as I am against the lynching of the Captain, I am also against any sort of brutalization of the town folk. What the Police need to do is to arrest the Perpetrators who lynched the Captain and subject them to the full rigors of the Law. Speaking of the Police, it is little wonder that the Army resorted to carrying out the investigations by themselves. The police have acted incompetently in similar matters over the years. There has not been even one instance where a person involved in mob injustice has been arrested and prosecuted. The Police have always looked away and people have been emboldened to commit such dastardly acts.

Our final Article will be Article 19, (1) (c), it says ‘‘a person charged with a criminal offense shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time by the Court’’. Article 19 (2)(C) perhaps is the jurisprudence that underpins the philosophy of our criminal law and it states ‘‘that a person charged with a criminal offense shall be presumed to be innocent until it is proven or he has pleaded guilty’’. Thus, until the Court goes through a trial process to prove the accused guilty or unless the accused person pleads guilty himself, he is to be presumed innocent. The import of this is that whenever a person is accused of a crime whether he is an armed robber, a mobile phone thief etc., that person is innocent and should therefore not be touched by any person. The painful reality is that even if the accused person was sent to Court and convicted for the crime that he was accused him of, the sentence would not have been death but a few years in prison. How can it be that a person who steals a mobile phone, for instance, is beaten to death? The injustice of such mob behavior has its foundation in the fact that most of those who participate in the lynching did not see the person they had accused committing the crime. They only jump to the fray because someone told them. But we know people lie and lie every day. We also know there can be mistaken identity. Therefore you contributed to killing a human being simply because someone said they saw them committing the crime.

Consider this, what if the Captain and the many people who have been lynched were your brothers and friends.

Do we honestly believe that all these people needed to die? Would you not have at least wished the mob asked the person to state his side of the story? What if it is the case of mistaken identity?

Who made you a Judge of Human Life? Are you not a Christian who believes in the sanctity and the forgiveness of sin?

These are the questions that I ask myself every day but fail to get answers to. How can so much wickedness and cruelty reside in our hearts yet claim to be Christians?

/0 Comments/by

Freedom of Association and Assembly

The Freedom of Assembly includes the rights to take part in possessions or demonstrations. It is also a fundamental right given to every citizen. If a citizen is unhappy about things that are going on, the citizen reserves the right to demonstrate against those things. In fact, it is this law that has given rights to any and all citizens who have taken part in demonstrations. In the recent past, the Police were slowly but surely usurping these rights that have been given to a citizen. The Police did so by relying on the Public Order Act, which among others, required any citizen who wanted to demonstrate to notify the Police about their intention to demonstrate. Between the Police and the Demonstrator, they were to agree on the route, timeframe, etc. of the demonstration. The Police often acting in bad faith would surreptitiously go to the Court at the 11th hour without notice to the Demonstrator and stop the demonstration. On one or two occasions, one could understand why the Police could take such a step but the practice became so rampant that it became obvious that the Police were totally preventing the demonstration. The Court had to put its foot down to declare that the right of a citizen to demonstrate was fundamental and even superseded the inconveniences that such a demonstration will occasion the Police Service and that the Police did not have that right to go to court to stop demonstration especially when they did not do so by giving notice to the demonstrator.

This right of Association also includes the right of Assembly. Many people can organize and meet on any field of interest. Therefore, if Uncle Ebo Whyte wants to do a play and show it at the National Theatre, he does not have to take permission from anybody except the management of the National Theatre for the venue. Similarly, it is this Law of Assembly that allows even the Church to hold a gathering. Whereas the law gives all of us the right of freedom of religion, there needs to be a freedom of assembly which would allow us to hold masses together.

This same Law allows people working together or working in similar work areas to form a trade union who would negotiate terms with your Employer on your behalf. No Employer would succeed in Court if he dismisses an employee simply because they have joined a Trade Union. Therefore, the decision to join a Trade Union is exclusively an Employee’s decision. This, of course, means that no Employee can be forced to join any Trade Union.

This Right of Association and Assembly is extremely important and perhaps as important as the right of speech. Its absence could mean that a Government could make a law that would criminalize the association of 2 0r 3 persons. If any Government succeeded in that, what it would mean would be that before there is a gathering of 2 0r persons, permission ought to be sought and granted by the Government. Effectively there would be no Church Services unless the Government wished, no parties unless sanctioned by the Government, no anniversaries or celebration and I daresay that there would have been no intimacy between husband and wife unless they went for authority from the Government to allow them to associate. The absurdity of this situation would very much be an occurrence had the constitution not made a provision for these rights which we have often taken for granted but without which our lives would have been miserable.

/0 Comments/by

Treatment of Juveniles And Prevention of Slavery And Forced Labour

A child can commit an offense like an adult. A child is anybody under the age of 18 years. We know that sometimes a 16 or 17-year-old can commit the offenses of rape, stealing and even armed robbery. The question is, should we treat such a child who has committed the offense like how we treat the adults? The position is even more interesting when and if the offense is committed by a child who is about 17 years, 11 months old. What we will need to bear in mind is that we recognize a person to be a child not simply because they are young but because we believe they do not possess the full mental capacity to think like an adult. If this argument should hold sway, then it means that a child who commits a crime should not be treated like an adult.

The constitution says that a child who commits a crime shall be held separately from adults. The implication of this is that no child should be held in any of the maximum or medium security prisons in Ghana. In Ghana, child offenders are held in places like borstal institutes, one of which is at Roman Ridge. It is also a fact that child offenders are not tried in the mainstream courts but in the juvenile courts. This will afford the court the opportunity to handle the trial in a humane manner that will keep the child’s interest as a primary consideration.

Another important feature of the constitution is the prevention of slavery. The constitution forbids any person from making the other a slave. You cannot turn a person into your slave simply because he owes you money. Similarly, you cannot agree to buy a person and make them your slave because their parents have pledged them to you. In the past, whole communities had been turned into slaves because they were defeated in a war. These slaves, in turn, were sold to white men. This practice would continue until the champions were themselves defeated and also sold into slavery. It is key to note that under the current dispensation you cannot make any person your slave. Slavery is the subjection of a person to inhuman treatment, the subjugation of a person’s will and freedom and the continuous repression of his rights and enjoyment. Some people have converted their house helps and/or persons living with them into slaves without knowing. It is important to be fair and humane to all persons so that you will not be accused of turning them into slaves.

Another feature of the constitution is the aspect of forced labor. No one should be made to do any work they do not want to do. If you force anyone to work, you would be committing an offense under our laws. That is why it is important to get the consent of anyone you wish to employ, whether they can handle the responsibilities and chores given them.

/0 Comments/by

Fair Trial

In this article we explain to you the principles for Fair Trial that any person accused of a crime should be afforded:

  • Presumption of innocence until proven guilty: This is a fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence. Anyone who is accused of a crime should be seen as innocent until the Court establishes that he is guilty. This means, like the example, I have given severally, that if one chances upon a man standing over the dead body of his wife with a knife in his hand and the knife dripping of blood, that man should be presumed innocent of killing his wife until proven guilty. It is because of this age-old principle that makes it criminal for anybody to participate in the lynching of a criminal even if the criminal was apprehended red handedly or was caught red-handed. This is because even that criminal is presumed innocent until the Court has gone into the matter and established his guilt of the crime. Many a time, innocent people have been condemned or killed by such mob action before their guilt is established. A witness to a crime may wrongfully identify a person as the perpetrator of the crime and often to very disastrous consequences. I know it is not easy to hand over a criminal that has been apprehended to the Police, especially when one has been a victim of a violent crime but sometimes in venting our spleen on persons we believe to be criminal, we could be wrongfully condemning an innocent person to death.

 

  • Adequate time and facility to mount a defense: This is also a very important principle that is afforded every accused person. Whenever a person is charged with an offense, the Court must ensure that the accused person is given enough time and the necessary tools to prepare for his defense. Enough time here means time for the accused to find a Lawyer, the opportunity given to the accused to know the charges against him and the basis for the charges and the opportunity to find all the witnesses that he will need to support his story. For instance, a man is charged with causing unlawful harm because he fought with another person in traffic. The basis of the charges as given by the Police is to say that the man without provocation beat up another person in traffic and in the process wounded the person grievously. If the man’s defense is that he was first assaulted by the other man and he only threw some punches to defend himself, then the accused person must be given time:
  1. To go to the hospital and show his injury
  2. To find the witnesses, possibly the street persons who use that place as their beat,
  3. Any other witness the accused can bring to testify to his character as being a person not given to petty quarrels.
  4. To find any other piece of evidence that can help the accused person’s story.
  • Permitted to defend himself either in person or by a Lawyer of his choice: Sometimes a person accused of a crime may decide to defend himself in Court. I have seen some of such accused persons do a very good job of defending themselves. Similarly, I have seen some accused persons destroy their cases by asking very self-indicting questions. I remember the funny story of the man who was accused of stealing a goat and in his bid to defend himself asked the witness whether he stole the goat with his left or right hand and when the witness said it was his left hand, the man gleefully said it was his right hand and therefore should be made to go. He thought he had done a good job but had only succeeded in convicting himself. Equally, I have seen many such accused persons fall on their own swords when they had sought to defend themselves.
    My point, therefore, is that it is better to engage a Lawyer to defend you whenever you are charged with any offense. The law says that the Lawyer must be one of your own choosing. This means that you should have the opportunity to vet the Lawyer and determine whether he is best placed in terms of his commitment and competence to defend you.
/0 Comments/by

Arrest and Detention Of a Person

The constitution says that any person who is arrested, restricted, or detained shall be informed immediately, in a language that he understands, on the reasons of his arrest, restriction or detention and of a right to a lawyer of his choice.

The important aspect of this is the fact that the person being arrested should know why he is being arrested. If the policeman arresting him informs him of the reason of his arrest albeit in a language not understood by the person, it has the same effect as if he has not been informed of the reason of his arrest.

Many times the police have made an arrest of persons by simply telling them they were under arrest, without proffering the reasons for the arrest.  At times, the policeman may simply explain the reason in Twi, English, or Ga for instance, without asking the person being arrested whether or not he understood the language being used. Any person who is arrested in this manner stands a good chance of being released from prison or custody by a court because the proper process or procedure for arrest was not followed.

I understand that it is not in every situation that a person being arrested will be informed immediately of the reason for his arrest. Take the situation where police arrest an armed robber through serious gun battle, the police cannot inform the armed robber in the heat of exchange of bullets why he is being arrested. However, the law requires that as soon as practicable, that armed robber should be informed as to why he is being arrested. This also implies that the person arresting, should not assume that the one he is arresting knows the reason why he is being arrested. Many a time, people that the public may perceive as having committed a crime may be let loose by the court because of such technicalities as we have discussed supra. When that happens, people are outraged and often blame the court or lawyers of some complicity. The truth, however, is that the court may never go into the substance of any matter if at the very periphery, procedures, as enshrined in the constitution, are not adhered to.

As part of the information, the person being arrested should also be entitled to a lawyer. The right to counsel /lawyer is the fundamental right of every citizen. Many people do not know that they are entitled to a lawyer in any case that they have, because the law presumes that you are innocent regardless of the circumstance of your arrest. Thus the man who was reported in the papers to have killed his own mother is entitled to a lawyer just as the other who was alleged to have raped an imbecile. The perception of a person’s guilt or otherwise is not conditioned precedence to a person’s right to a lawyer.

/0 Comments/by