The Circuit Court’s decision to remand the Bono Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Kwame Baffoe, popularly known as Abronye, has ignited a firestorm, with critics branding the ruling a severe “assault on the jurisprudence of bail globally”.
In a detailed public post on Facebook on Friday, September 12, the NPP National Organiser, Henry Nana Boakye, launched a scathing critique of the court’s decision, arguing it represents a fundamental betrayal of constitutional and legal principles.
Nana Boakye, a legal practitioner who read the full certified ruling, stated that the court’s action runs contrary to the core purpose of bail.
“Bail is only intended to secure the attendance of an accused person to stand trial, and a court, per Section 96(4) of Act 30, must not withhold bail as punishment, especially when the nature of the offence is a misdemeanour,” he wrote.
Citing the landmark case Martin Kpebu vs Attorney General (No.2), he underscored that bail’s sole aim is to secure a person’s release pending trial, upholding the constitutional presumption of innocence.
The legal critique went further, accusing the court of judicial endorsement of inequality.
The ruling reportedly used the standing of the Inspector General of Police (IGP), the complainant, to justify the remand, a move Nana Boakye labeled as “completely misguided.”
“The Court’s suggestion that the IGP is unequal to every other citizen is a judicial endorsement of inequality contrary to Article 17 of the Constitution,” he asserted.
He added that no citizen, including the IGP, should be allowed to use the justice system to settle personal scores.
Furthermore, the court was accused of being “manifestly prejudicial” and breaching the constitutional presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of Ghana’s legal system.
The court’s ruling contained what were seen as suggestions of Abronye’s guilt even before the case could proceed to trial.
“The Court was manifestly prejudicial in breach of the constitutional presumption of innocence with its many suggestions of Chairman Abronye being guilty even before authenticating the said video and same being subjected through the rigorous process of a trial,” Nana Boakye wrote.
The lawyer also condemned the court’s rationale for denying bail, stating it effectively prejudged the entire case and ignored the procedural safeguards designed to protect the accused. He described the court’s justification based on “consistency” as “even more absurd,” arguing it simply revealed a “thirst to curtail the liberty of citizens in politically charged cases.”
He particularly took issue with the court’s use of outmoded legal references and its reliance on pure conjecture. The court’s position that Abronye might commit a similar offense while on bail was lambasted as having “no proven basis as required by law.”
Nana Boakye referenced the case of Okoe V Republic- [1976] 1 GLR 80, where Justice Taylor was clear that such an inquiry is “so speculative and hazardous that no court of justice should be required to embark on such an inquiry.”
Concluding his argument, Nana Boakye quoted Stack v. Boyle, a case restated in Okoe v Republic, which highlights that bail is not meant to keep individuals in jail on “mere accusation until it is found convenient to give them a trial.” Instead, it is a privilege that ensures even the wrongfully accused are not punished before a trial has found them guilty.