Why the Continuous Refusal of Bail to Abronye is Bad Law

Abronye

The denial of bail strikes at the heart of constitutionalism and human rights in Ghana. Under the 1992 Constitution, the right to personal liberty is a fundamental right, protected under Article 14(1). This right can only be curtailed for special reasons clearly justified by law. When courts refuse bail without proper basis, they undermine both the Constitution and the principles of justice. The recent continuous refusal by the Circuit Court to grant bail to Mr. Kwame Baffoe (popularly known as Abronye), the Bono Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party, demonstrates a clear example of bad law in practice.

Bail and the Constitutional Right to Liberty
The general rule is that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty (Article 19(2)(c)). Bail is therefore an extension of this presumption, ensuring that a person’s liberty is not unnecessarily curtailed while awaiting trial.

In Martin Kpebu v Attorney-General [2016], the Supreme Court struck down Section 96(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code (which barred bail for certain offences) as unconstitutional. The Court held that judicial discretion in bail matters cannot be taken away and that the presumption of innocence requires courts to assess each case individually.

Thus, the continuous denial of bail to Abronye, especially without reference to the conditions set out in Section 96 of Act 30, is unconstitutional and amounts to a violation of his human rights.

The Nature of the Offence: A Misdemeanor
Abronye is facing charges classified as a misdemeanor under the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). Misdemeanors are the least serious offences in Ghana’s criminal justice system. In practice, many such cases, even where guilt is established, result only in fines or short custodial sentences.

Section 96 of Act 30: The Legal Grounds for Refusing Bail

Under Section 96(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act 30), bail may only be refused if:

The accused may not appear to stand trial;
The accused may interfere with witnesses or evidence;

The accused may commit another offence while on bail; or

The accused committed a new offence while already on bail.

There is no evidence that Abronye satisfies any of these conditions. He is a public figure with a known residence and occupation, and therefore has no incentive to abscond. There has been no suggestion that he would interfere with witnesses or obstruct investigations. None of the statutory grounds under Section 96(5) have been satisfied.

To continue denying him bail, therefore, is to act contrary to Act 30 and to the Constitution itself.

Human Rights Perspective
The Constitution is explicit that personal liberty should not be taken away lightly. Article 14(1) allows deprivation of liberty only in specific circumstances, such as conviction after trial, lawful arrest, or to prevent escape. Even then, such deprivation must be reasonable, necessary, and consistent with the presumption of innocence.

Remanding a person charged with a misdemeanor in custody for days or weeks, when the likely punishment is only a fine, amounts to disproportionate interference with liberty. It effectively punishes the accused before conviction, contrary to the principle that bail must not be withheld as a form of punishment (Section 96(4), Act 30).

Conclusion
The refusal of bail by the Circuit Court in the case involving Mr. Kwame Baffoe is bad law for several reasons. First, it violates the constitutional right to personal liberty and the presumption of innocence under Articles 14 and 19. Second, the charge is a misdemeanor, the lowest category of offence, often attracting only fines in practice. Third, the statutory grounds under Section 96(5) for refusing bail have not been satisfied. Finally, the Supreme Court in Martin Kpebu v AG has made it clear that absolute prohibitions on bail are unconstitutional.

The continuous denial of bail in these circumstances undermines judicial discretion, offends constitutional guarantees, and erodes public confidence in the justice system. The proper course, in line with the Constitution and case law, is to admit Abronye to bail with fair and reasonable conditions, ensuring both his liberty and his availability for trial.