Harsh Bail Terms: EOCO Against The Masses; The Way To Seek Redress

Recently, there has been several mass agitations over harsh bail terms administered by law enforcement agencies particularly involving key or prominent persons of the society. Among such cases this year include; Shatta Wale and the Lamborghini Urus, Chairman Wontumi’s multiple alleged serious crime offences, Abronye DC’s alleged offensive conduct to the breach of peace, and Kofi Akpaloo’s alleged corruption related offences.

In the aforesaid instances, the masses or supporters of these figures went on rampage, venting their disagreement for the release of the suspects despite their inability to meet bail terms. To them, the bail conditions seem harsh. To my dismay, even the Minority Caucus in Parliament of whom some are lawyers led by its leader blocked the main road at the EOCO office sat on bare floor venting their disagreement for the release of Chairman Wontumi. Is this the way to go seeking review of bail conditions? Certainly no. The law establishes rules or procedures for circumventing this.

The Economic and Organised Crime Office Act, 2010 (Act 804) gives EOCO financial jurisdiction over serious economic and organized crimes, including money laundering, tax fraud, and acts involving financial loss to the state. Notwithstanding, the Criminal and other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30) section 96(3) states the amount and conditions of bail which “shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive or harsh” or onerous. The bail terms by law ought to commensurate with the offense committed or the money involved in the case. However, it appears that some bail terms are deliberately raised and used as a mechanism to detain suspects unreasonably against the 48-hour rule which states that, “a person who is arrested, restricted or detained shall be brought before a competent court of jurisdiction within forty-eight (48) hours after the arrest, restriction or detention” (Article 14(3) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana). It must be said that all offenses are bailable but bail is not a right. It is at the discretion of the court. Hence, if the suspect is not granted bail or tried within 48 hours of arrest, a lawyer can petition the court for a review of the bail terms. Here, is where the court reviews the bail sum and sureties and when they are met, issues a Writ of Mandamus to the said institution to perform. However, there is no automatic right to bail. Section 96(5) of Act 30 gives reasons upon which a court shall refuse to grant bail; such as in the case where the defendant - (a) may not appear to stand trial; or (b) may interfere with any witness or evidence, or in any way hamper police investigations; or (c) may commit a further offence when on bail; or (d) is charged with an offence punishable by imprisonment exceeding six months which is alleged to have been committed while he was on bail.

Also, Section 96(7) of Act 30 further detail offenses upon which a court shall refuse to grant bail including; (a) treason, subversion, murder, robbery, hijacking, piracy, rape and defilement or escape from lawful custody; or (b) where a person is being held for extradition to a foreign country.

Thence, if the bail conditions are not met, the suspect can still be kept in custody until final determination of the case. Therefore, it’s not a matter of blocking the streets or parading the EOCO precinct that reduces bail conditions, but by using the rule the law.