High Court remands Abronye over failure to surrender passport
An Accra High Court has remanded the Bono Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Kwame Baffoe, known popularly as Abronye DC), into police custody.
This comes after the politician failed to comply with a bail condition requiring him to surrender his passport.
Abronye DC is standing trial on one count of publication of false news and one count of offensive conduct conducive to the breach of peace, related to statements allegedly made about a Circuit Court judge.
He was granted bail on May 21, in the sum of GH¢100,000 with two sureties to be justified, alongside conditions requiring regular reporting to the CID Headquarters and restriction on foreign travel.
The court on Thursday, June 4, dismissed an application for variation of the bail condition and ordered that he remain in custody until the passport is deposited with the court registry.
Delivering the ruling, Justice Halimah El-Alawa Abdul-Bassit, who presided over the hearing, described the failure to comply with the court’s order as a serious breach.
“The court made specific orders directing applicant to deposit his passport at the registry of the court… This constituted a flagrant disrespect to the court’s order. This court will not condone,” she stated.
Meanwhile, Abronye’s legal team, led by Daniel Martey Addo, had argued that the passport was in the custody of the United Kingdom High Commission and submitted a receipt to support the claim.
The lawyer also told the court that the accused needed to travel for academic purposes, stating that he was expected to resume studies in the United Kingdom on June 14, and also raised health-related concerns.
However, the prosecution, led by Principal State Attorney Joshua Sackey, opposed the application, noting that the bail conditions were mandatory and had not been fulfilled.
“The order admitting Abronye to bail expressly required him to surrender his travelling documents to the registrar of the court and not travel outside the jurisdiction without the court's permission,” he argued.
The court agreed with the prosecution’s position and ruled that the accused must remain in custody until he complies with the directives.