My take on crowd dispersal

First of all, I wish to join others to express my deepest sympathy to the bereaved family of the Ejura episode, involving the death of Kaaka, the two others and the wounded persons. Wishing the wounded person speedy recovery. But I write to present a personal honest view on matters of crowd dispersal in general and related issues in this Country for corrective action hence, not in support of aberrations in the Country.

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021, the IGP, narrated in a very professional and humble manner to the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament on the use of force alias Rules of Engagement (RoE) by security personnel. But due to some people dislike for the IGP or their lack of real or in-depth knowledge and experience on the subject in this country, he was attacked by some by some of them. I regard this as an insult to the integrity of a well accomplished/professional Senior or Chief Commissioned Police Officer (IGP) from people who should be proffering good ideas to help build or improve our nation are rather on divisive path thus maybe to drive a wedge between the populace.

The IGP is neither my relative nor my friend and I am even one of the persons who are of the strong view that the IGP and Service Commanders must not stay in office beyond 4 years. But strongly support the Constitutional provision that the Head of State (the President) the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ghana must be the appointing authority for the IGP and others as strongly justified in my Article on matters on the Appointment of the IGP, as published in Modern Ghana dated Monday 28 June 2021.

Before I deal with the subject, I wish to digress small in order to disabuse the minds of the public, that Soldiers are not trained in Crowd Dispersals etc. Personnel of the Infantry and other branches of the Ghana Army are given rigorous training in Internal Security Operation, Voluntary Principles of Human Rights and Security (VPHRS) to help the personnel in their duties in aid to Civil Power or Authority. We even do joint training with the USA Military High Command for Africa on African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) on the subject and during Peace-keeping Operation Training. We are taught at the Military Academy and the Combat Training School etc on both International Human Rights Law for peace and war times concerning human dignity and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) which also deals with human dignity and seek to promote human welfare in Combat Operation or Armed Conflict so as to protect people who are not involved in the war like women, children or those whose involvement has been terminated (as surrendered persons or prisoners of war).

The IGP was 100 per cent right, fire arm with live bullets may be used against a rioters or a specific individual who is engaging in an act that poses an immediate threat of loss of life or serious bodily injury to himself or herself, officers, or the general public or who is engaging in substantial destruction of property which creates an imminent risk to the lives or safety of other persons. That is to say fire arms are to be used against specific individuals or group of persons who are engaging in behavior that poses an immediate threat of serious injury or death, or is significantly endangering the safety of others.

Hence depending on the situation, on arrival at the scene the security personnel with line up or take rehearsed positions, hence Security presence or show of force established which is the beginning of Use of Force Continuum, depending on the situation a barricade with rope or barrier etc may be created or a road or path is designated as no crossing line to prevent the crowd to access the no go area or act as planned, then warning with Loudhailer for them to disperse or not to come close the barrier, depending on the situation, use of non-lethal weapon (Taser, pepper spray etc) but note depending on the range pepper spray etc may not be effective, so warning shots into the air to signal danger ahead if the crowd persist

In theory, depending on the situation say Unlawful Assembly and as prearranged the Troop Leader will give an order for one or three persons to open fire against one or two persons especially identified persons like ring leaders or armed persons and only few casualties. The firing may be done by a sniper who may take an appropriate Firing position and the sniper or two firers will align their weapon to ensure the right target is aimed at and cause applicable deadly force to cause bodily harm.

Hence use of firearms can only be lawful where it is necessary to confront an imminent threat of death or serious injury or a grave and proximate threat to life. Blank or life ammunition (ammo) may be used depending on the situation on the ground. But, the history in Ghana is that only live ammo are normally issued to the troops due to past experiences and other genuine reasons.

Maybe we may consider providing a third magazine with blank ammo but due to past casualties including death of Policemen and others, from security personnel, no security man may wait to be shot first and killed for the Imam or Chaplain or Pastor to visit and sympathize with the wife or husband. For this reason, the citizens must also learn to assess danger and obey orders of the Police, otherwise as risk experts normally say, once it has happened it may occur again.

What happened at Ejura is highly regrettable but unfortunately it seems this situation is part of our system (DNA) which needs immediate corrective actions by both parties (the Police and the Citizens). Yes the Constitution guarantees freedom to demo or association but in a lawful manner since it also allows Security personnel to deal deadly with dangerous elements, especially when life and property are under imminent danger and no security personnel will allow himself to be attacked and killed or wounded since the Constitution also guarantees his safety. Hence common sense requires the need to have a common ground so the citizens must know when to disperse or ran way as ordered to avoid loss of life or bodily harm. The time to run away is when you see the arrival of reinforcement as a sign of respect for the troops, because as usual in this Country they are going to do usual business due to the level of training. Hence continuous training and rehearsals on the subject for the Security personnel is recommended.

It must be emphasized that, though the Rules of Engagement state that, Law enforcement officials in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. they may use force and firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the planned result. Hence, the use of force will depend on the situation and the judgment of the Officer on the ground.

A threat to the life and safety of law enforcement officials must be seen as a threat to the stability of society as a whole, hence force maybe used and the use of force and fire arms by law enforcement officials should be commensurate with due respect for human rights.

The use of force is governed by five Basic Principles, namely;

1. Legality (Legal basis)–The laws of Ghana especially Article 13(2) of the 1992 Constitution provides that: A person shall not be held to have deprived another person of his life in contravention of clause (1) of this article if that other person dies as the result of a lawful act of war or if that other person dies as a result of the use of force to such an extent as is reasonably justifiable in the particular circumstances:

For the defence of any person from violence or the defence of property. a). Or in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained. b). Or for the purpose of suppressing a riot, insurrection or mutiny. c). Or in order to prevent the commission of a crime.

Normally it is legal depending on the Heat of the moment' like;

2... Necessity – Necessary” means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended. Necessity is based on the totality of the circumstances known by the officer at the time of the use of force. This serves to establish whether force should be used at all and if so how much force, then it must be based on three factors (1) Qualitative of the force (is it necessary at all or is it likely to attain the legitimate objective without resorting to force), (2).Quantitative (how much force is required to attain the objective) and (3). Temporary (stop once the objective is attained or no longer achievable or exist). “Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. They may use force and firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result.

3.. Proportionality- To be proportional, the level of force applied must reflect the totality of circumstances surrounding the situation at hand, including the nature and immediacy of any threats posed to officers and others. Officers must rely on training, experience, and assessment of the situation to decide an appropriate level of force to be applied. Reasonable and sound judgment will dictate the force option to be employed. Proportional force does not require officers to use the same type or amount of force as the subject. The more immediate the threat and the more likely that the threat will result in death or serious physical injury, the greater the level of force that may be proportional, objectively reasonable, and necessary to counter it.

This implies that the Law enforcement officials are only allowed to put life at risk if it is for the purpose of saving or protecting another life, and the force used should not go above a ceiling.

4. The fourth principles is Accountability – The Officer must account for his deeds, redress and compensation for victims for violation of human rights, as a measure to prevent future violation and to enhance the work of the law enforcement official Agency as a whole through lessons learned for remedial action.

5. Support the injured persons etc - The fifth principles is provide medical aid if injured and inform the family of the victim.

Hence the use of force must be legally, reasonable and actually necessary to avoid an excessive force complaint. Based on that, the USA’s Supreme Court in 1989, gave a landmark ruling that force must be judged based on its objective reasonableness. In the determination of the "objective reasonableness" of force, the court set out a series of three factors: "the severity of the crime", "whether there is an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others", and "Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or evading.

Thus, the Supreme Court of USA, clearly ruled that force is justified only if the Officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect or crowd poses a serious risk to the Officer or others that the objective reasonableness of the use of deadly force is based on the situation in which it was used. The reasonableness of a particular use of force is based on the totality of circumstances known by the officer at the time of the use of force and weighs the actions of the officer against the rights of the subject, in light of the circumstances surrounding the event. It must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene. The calculus of reasonableness must allow for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and dynamic and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation Implying the. I wish to add that, it is Reasonable, given the facts and circumstances observed by the officer on the ground at the time of the event, to effectively bring an incident under control.

The reasonableness inquiry in an excessive-force case is an objective one: whether the officers’ actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.

. Whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall:

(a) Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved; hence the Security personnel must adopt the appropriate posture that can afford him or her the direct aim to the target. That is the law.

It is a requirement that the law enforcement officials should be equipped with self-defensive equipment such as shields, helmets, bullet-proof vests and bullet-proof means of transportation, in order to decrease the need to use weapons of any kind.

Among others, the following are factors to be considered in determining the objective reasonableness of force include, but are not limited to: a).The seriousness of the crime or suspected offense; b). The level of threat or resistance presented by the subject; c). Whether the subject was posing an immediate threat to officers or a danger to the community; d). The risk or apparent attempt by the subject to escape and the government interest in preventing the escape, e). The proximity or access of weapons to the subject, f).The potential for injury to members of the public, officers or subjects; g). The conduct of the subject being confronted (as reasonably perceived by the officer at the time); h) . The time available to an officer to make a decision; i). The training and experience of the officer and the availability of other resources;

j). The training and experience of the officer; k). Officer versus subject factors such as age, size, relative strength, skill level, injury/exhaustion and number of officers versus subjects;

It must also be noted that any interpretation of reasonableness must allow for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split second decisions in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.

It is hereby stressed that no security policy or person that can realistically predicts every possible situation an officer might encounter in the field, so it is recognized that each officer must be entrusted with well-reasoned discretion in determining the appropriate use of force in each incident. While it is the ultimate objective of every law enforcement encounter to minimize injury to everyone involved, no credible security policy will require an officer to actually sustain physical injury before applying reasonable force.

Rules-of Engagement or Use of Force Continuum or graduation in Security operations, the level of force to be used is as stated in the below order but note that your risk assessment of the situation may determine your choice of any of the levels without following the below sequence. Hence, a situation may dictate the use of deadly force without going through the use of force continuum; a). Weaponless control- This is the first level of use of force involving physical presence, next warning given orally or by signaling to a person or persons to halt unlawful act or disperse (go away) etc otherwise force maybe applied to obtain compliance. .It also involve either the use of obstacle or physical (bodily) action to deal with a situation. Use of dogs may fall in this level. Exercise persuasion, advice, and verbal warning, however, if verbal means are or may be ineffective, you may use physical force etc to accomplish a law enforcement purpose.

b). Intermediate (non-lethal) Weapon Control. Herein refers to the second level of use of Force Intermediate weapons are weapons other than firearms or lethal weapons with non-lethal munitions, designed to supplement weapon-less control techniques example are, batons, Tasers, or electronic weapons, pepper spray etc. b) Use of weapon or lethal force or Firm arm. Use of deadly weapons or fire arms depending on the situation.

Once again, an Officer Will Use Only Force That Is Objectively Reasonable, Necessary, and Proportional to the Threat or Resistance of a Subject:

Incidentally, the History of use of Force in causing serious casualties (serious bodily harm and even deaths) in Ghana remained the same if not worsen since the 28 February 1948 Christianborg or Gold Coast recorded last shooting incident. Ghana has recorded several serious casualties during Crowd Control, Crowd Dispersal or Dispersal of Unlawful Assembly since Independence. Reports of security personnel sustaining bodily injury and death during Crowd Control were also recorded in the past. So urgent need to change the situation.

But, due to some historical facts on troops welfare matters especially poor compensation etc as alleged or experienced by soldiers etc, some Security Personnel have vowed not to wait for a hooligan to kill him for the Imam or Pastor or Chaplain to visit their wives to counsel them since no sufficient compensation for the family left behind as happened to the family of Officer, who lost his life in Liberia due to the disappointment by his platoon and other security personnel who lost their lives during internal security operations.

At this point, I wish to narrate some of life experiences related to the main subject to drive my points home with issues and lessons/recommendations. A). In December 2001, the youth of Awudia near Tarkwa attacked the then Chief, burnt the palace. I dispatched troops with necessary gadgets commanded by an Officer after briefing they departed and extricated the then Chief of Awudia and others from being lynched by the rioting youth. Due to the attack on security personnel etc only wounded casualties were sustained by both parties. Similar incident happened in the same month by the youth of Himan near Prestea when they destooled the then Chief and took him and the then DCE of Wassa West District Assembly Tarkwa (Mr Ayensu) hostage. The DCE car was burnt and they wanted to kill them. So under the Heat of the moment we extricated them with one or two alleged dead persons or so. Highly regrettable. Lessons- the situation on the ground may determine the action by the troops so the effect maybe unpredictable, to minimize casualties requires good briefing, rehearsals, if time permits for professional approach and the rioters too must respect security personnel.

b). In the 2002, my troops and I had to be airlifted by Helicopter to Tarkwa to protect then Australian Gold Ltd (now Goldfields Company). We arrived at the Heat of the Moment but due to the rehearsals conducted before moving to the scene the very aggressive posture by the workers against their Management on Severance Award matter evaporated or foiled. Paved way for a dialogue, with the Western Regional RGSEC as the mediator or arbitrator. The matter was resolved by REGSEC, when we studied the Collective Bargaining Agreement sign by both parties which clearly stipulated that staff will be entitle to the payment of Severance Award when there is change of Ownership/Management of the Company. But we also encouraged the the staff to be reasonable with their demand. This was one of the reason that led to the establishment of the Labour Commission to act as Arbitrator between workers and Management. Lessons- Maybe the landed Helicopter and the highly aggressive troop’s presence helped. Hence rapid approach of troops with appropriate working gear and their smart movement may help disperse some moderate rioters. Also the Citizens especially the leaders of demo must always ensure to show leadership for effective managing of their fellow demonstrators, because likely infiltration by 5^th Columns or criminal minded persons cannot be ruled. Leaders of Demonstrators must have a contingency plan as an exit strategy or plan for abandoning it which should be known by some of the members or their leaders to be activated when the situation demands so to avoid confrontation. Demonstrators must learn how to respect security personnel on arrival at the Scene when the situation seemed is likely to be rowdy.