Human rights, protests (2)

The recent demonstrations organised by Democracy Hub, have laid bare the problems prevalent in our criminal justice system vis-a-vis the promotion, protection and enforcement of constitutionally guaranteed human rights.

The constitutional rights that came into sharp focus include but are not limited to the following: freedom of expression and assembly, right to liberty and bail, rights on arrest, etc.

As a human rights activist and practitioner, I was scandalised by what were stark violations of our Constitution and, by extension, internationally guaranteed rights.

The promotion, protection and enforcement of human rights have become the yardstick in the modern world for judging the democratic credentials of any government, and Ghana is no exception.

I was very concerned and saddened by the reportage of credible foreign news outlets on the developments which unfolded here.

Freedom of assembly, including freedom to take part in processions and demonstrations, is clearly and unambiguously provided in Article 21 (1) (d) of the Constitution.

In fact, in the case of New Patriotic Party (NPP) vs the Attorney General, where several protesters of the NPP were arrested for various offences, including unlawful assembly, Justice Hayfron Benjamin emphasised the need for strict adherence to human rights as a vehicle for upholding human dignity.

Rights

Another area of criminal justice that came under siege during the demonstrations was the powers of the Police on arrest and the rights of arrested persons.

There were widespread reports in the media of how the rights of the arrested people were starkly violated. The arrested persons were not informed of the reasons for their arrest in gross violation of article 19(d), which mandates that arresting officers should inform arrested persons, in a language which they understand, of the reasons for their arrest.

I watched in total disbelief on some local news channels how a protester with a medical condition, asthma, was denied medical care.

The Police are required to allow arrested persons to contact family and friends to inform them as to the place of their incarceration. But again, this right was denied most of the arrested persons, resulting in an unfortunate situation where friends and family members were kept in the dark.

In a country where the conditions of our cells are so dire, with most arrested persons not given sustenance, this was a gross violation of their rights needing immediate solutions from authorities.

Denied legal representation

By far, however, the greatest and, in my opinion, the most grievous violation of the rights of those arrested was the denial of access to legal representation.

Listening to how the arrested persons were denied access to their lawyers touched a raw nerve as I have been a ‘victim’ of the practice on several occasions, the most recent being only a month ago.

The police refused to volunteer the place of detention for some arrested persons whose families had contacted me for assistance.

In the end, these accused persons were sent to court without legal representation on a serious charge murder and, guess what, they were remanded.

The right to access a lawyer is by far the most important of all the ‘Miranda Rights’ on arrest for several reasons:

– it protects the rights of arrested persons during police interrogations from police intimidation and improper questioning;

– it protects arrested persons from confessions that are not voluntary;

– it ensures fair questioning, which ultimately impacts on whether charges are brought or dropped;

– it influences the decisions on bail, etc.

Aftermath

The aftermath of the arrests and detention following the demonstrations has witnessed accusations of police impropriety and subsequent denials by the police.

This reinforces the importance of access to lawyers at the point of arrest to ensure adherence to all the procedural rules relating to police investigations.

Another reform that would address some of the alleged infractions would be to introduce the audio/video recording of police interviews.

This is because issues of admissibility of ‘confessions’ often crop up. Accused persons repeatedly deny confessions and allege that they are not voluntary, but rather coerced by several factors: beatings, duress, denial of food, torture, trickery, deceit, etc. Invariably, the police deny these and it becomes a matter of who the courts believe – a dispute which is normally decided in favour of the officers.

If a record of the police interrogation (audio/video) is available at trials, the problem of the voluntariness or otherwise of police interrogations would be a thing of the past.

The writer is a lawyer.
E-mail: georgebshaw1@gmail.com