The Public Face Of Law Enforcement

The system of justice which is in operation in this country is based on a principle which states that 'justice must not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.'

It was enunciated in 1924, in a landmark judgement on a case of judicial review, heard at the King's Bench Division of the Royal Courts of Justice in London, by Lord Chief Justice Hewart.

Usually, it is judges who are expected to adhere to this principle, and to show no bias whatsoever in their judgements, so that anyone who reads the judgements can see that 'justice has been done.'

But there are certain instances in which a judge alone cannot ensure that justice is manifestly seen to have been done. These involve criminal cases, where the State, represented by the Prosecution, arraigns an individual before the courts. In such cases, the judge depends on the efficient presentation of the case to become convinced that the evidence is weighty enough to lead to a conviction.

However, the very nature of a Prosecution Service makes the 'efficient presentation' of a case against an accused person, quite problematic. The Prosecution Service is made up of personnel selected from two professions - the Police Service and the Law, as represented by the Government's Legal Officers.

The Police Service gathers the evidence, and hands it over to the Legal Officers. They sift it and decide whether, if and when the case goes to court, it will result in a conviction.

This is where the trouble begins. Even in countries whose administration of justice is both efficient and incorruptible, mistakes can be made by the prosecuting officials. The most important mistakes are usually committed by the Police: in their eagerness to secure a conviction, they might manufacture evidence; and conversely, in their desire NOT to secure a conviction - usually because they have taken bribes - they might hide or even destroy evidence.

The issue regarding the Government's Lawyers is a bit different. They are presumed to know the law; to know whom to consult if something is not clear to an individual dealing with a docket; and, generally, to

work in such a collegiate manner that mistakes that a judge or the Defence might spot in court are plugged before the case reaches the court.

However, there are many issues of 'discretion' and 'interpretation of the law', where lawyers are concerned. A bad prosecuting lawyer can deliberately overlook parts of the law that might incriminate someone in whom he has an interest. Colleagues who detect the weaknesses in his position might not be too eager to point them out, for when one works in an office, it is unwise to court the displeasure of one's colleagues, by 'intruding' into what they consider their 'territory'. The syndrome of 'Do you want to teach me my work?' is well known in offices across the land!

Yet because of departmental secrecy, it is impossible for outsiders to notice that such a situation exists in a government department. But the existence of such a situation can be inferred from

the performance of the department concerned.
In the case of our Government's legal department, the results of two cases it has conducted recently point to the existence of lapses that have led to a widespread public perception that all is not well with the department. The first is the acquittal, on 12 March 2015, of Alfred Woyome, the 'financial engineer' taken to court for allegedly defrauding the Ghana Government of C51 million.

The second case is that of the six people accused of assisting a 'cocaine lady', Ms Ametefe (who has been imprisoned in the UK) to smuggle cocaine to the UK.

Of course, the public is not in a position to take the Attorney-General's Department to task over its handling of the two sensational cases. Only people of Mr Martin Amidu's background can do that.

What the public can do - and has been doing - is to smell a rat!

Now, it is of the greatest importance that the public should NOT a smell a rat about our judicial processes. This is because just 36 years ago, the smelling of a rat by the public led to some monumental miscarriages of justice occurring in this country. People not trained to administer justice were incited by the public to take up the reins of administering justice. The public perceived, whether rightly or wrongly, that the 'corrupt' justice system of the time would exculpate 'criminals.' And they agitated for extraordinary forms of justice to be applied to suspects.

Yet public perception can be wrong! That is why strong evidence is needed - and tested - before a suspect can be convicted.

Those entrusted with administering justice in our country must therefore not do anything that creates the impression that they want to shelter the guilty. The social contract between the people and the government is that the public allows itself to be coerced by arms of the elected government, in the expectation that the government will, in its turn, punish those whose actions harm the society.

There is a saying that 'those who do not learn from their own history are condemned to relive it.' If the Attorney-General's Department continues acting in the way it has been doing, it will create such a terrible perception of how the law works in this country that we may once again see untrained arbiters of the law administering justice as they see fit to their fellow citizens.

That second time round will, of course, be terrible to see.

It is the responsibility of the Attorney-General, and those who appointed the holder of that post, not to allow this such a calamity to recur.

By Cameron Duodu
www.cameronduodu.com