Per Section 96(7) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1960 (Act 30), a court shall refuse bail in instances of terrorism, treason, subversion, murder, robbery, escape from lawful custody, hijacking, piracy, rape and defilement.
The Section does not, however, have any legal effect today, following the landmark ruling in the case of Martin Kpebu vs. The Attorney General. Section 96(7) was argued extensively to be in contravention to Articles 15(2) and 19(2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution, hence the apex court decision.
Indeed, this decision brought a change to the Ghana legal landscape, especially when it comes to the principle that a person is innocent until proven otherwise.
While the citizens embrace this decision of the apex court wholehearted, the presiding judge of the Accra Circuit Court, His Honour Isaac Oheneba Kuffour, strongly holds the opinion that there is more room for improvement.
Mr. Kuffour’s opinion is centered on Section 96(6)(e) of Act 30, which states: “whether or not the defendant has a fixed place of abode in Ghana, and is gainfully employed.”
He expressed this opinion, while considering a bail application of two accused persons, who were said not to have fixed places of abode and also lived in slums.
According to him, an accused should not be denied bail for the mere fact that he or she does not have a fixed place of abode, as stipulated in Section 96(6)(e) of Act 30.
His observations were that circumstances of 1960, when the Act was enacted against modern times,may widely be different, hence the Section needs to be amended or reviewed.
He said in the 1960s, many people could afford to rent, and the issue of housing deficit was not in question, as it is today.
The judge noted that factors contributing to people to find themselves in unpleasant situations may vary and these enablers include economic hardship.
Unequivocally, The Chronicle associates itself with the opinion of this judge because a fixed place of abode should not be a barrier for an accused to be denied bail.
We say this based on facts such as lack of social amenities, ethnic conflicts, poor economic conditions and unemployment that have surged the phenomenon of rural-urban migration to all time high.
Most of these rural migrants do not have relative or money to afford a decent place to live, therefore, end-up on the streets and slums where accommodation is reasonable for their pockets.
So, in the event that some of these people come into contact with the law, should they be denied bail, as against someone who has a fixed place of abode?
Ostensibly, the answer shouldbe no, but what we can appeal for is that the bail conditions should rather be more compelling.
The paper believes that the National Identification Card (Ghana Card) should be the main requirement for tracking individuals being tried, since it is the mandatory form of identification to be used in all transactions.
In 1960, the identification system was not that sophisticated, compared to today that modern technologies come in handy. Although we agree it is not all Ghanaians that have the Ghana Card, making fixed place of abode the only condition for the granting of bail will further deepen the country’s income inequality and wealth disparity.
The Chronicle wants to encourage more judges and lawyers to contribute to the development of our legal jurisprudence,just as Martin Kpebuand His Honour Isaac Oheneba Kuffour have done by critiquing the law. After all, justice is about seeking fairness and defending human rights and dignity.
