On Newsfile, hosted by Samson Lardy Anyenini on 10 January 2026, Agyapa Mercer, a lawyer and former Member of Parliament for Sekondi, argued that while the State may prosecute if it has evidence, a public officer owes no duty to account. He suggested that an accused person is under no obligation to submit to court processes, stating:
“If Mr. Ofori‑Atta elects… I do not want to subject myself to this process, if they think they have evidence against me, let them go ahead and obtain their conviction.”
He further emphasised the right to remain silent, saying:
“No, you can go. You can attend and not speak, true or false?… So if he comes and goes to EOCO or whatever… they ask him questions, I won’t answer. Can anybody compel him to answer?”
Coming from a lawyer and former legislator, this position is not merely controversial, it is dangerous.
Public Office Is a Constitutional Trust
Article 35(8) of the 1992 Constitution obliges the State to eradicate corruption and the abuse of power. That obligation presupposes accountability by those who exercise public authority. Public office in Ghana is not a private privilege, it is a public trust.
This is why the Constitution establishes oversight institutions such as Parliament (Articles 93 and 103), the Auditor-General (Article 187), and CHRAJ (Article 218). These bodies exist precisely to ensure accountability in public service. The presumption of innocence under Article 19(2)(c) protects against wrongful conviction, it does not shield public officials from scrutiny or inquiry.
To argue that a public officer owes no duty to account unless first convicted is to invert constitutional logic and erode the foundations of accountability.
The Right to Silence Does Not Abolish Jurisdiction
Mercer’s reliance on Article 19 fundamentally misinterprets its purpose. The right against self-incrimination operates within judicial proceedings, it does not authorise complete avoidance of those proceedings.
Article 125 vests judicial power in the courts of Ghana, and Article 126 requires obedience to lawful court authority. One may appear before a court and choose to remain silent. What one may not do is refuse to appear entirely while claiming full constitutional protection. Rights detached from process become instruments of impunity.
Ghanaian Precedent Rejects Flight from Justice
Ghana’s legal history is instructive.
When Tsatsu Tsikata, a distinguished lawyer and former CEO of GNPC, was charged in connection with alleged financial loss to the State, he did not flee the jurisdiction. He faced the courts and contested the charges lawfully.
Similarly, Hon. Ato Forson, now Minister for Finance, faced criminal charges relating to alleged financial loss to the State. He also did not evade jurisdiction, appearing before the courts and allowing the judicial process to run its course.
These examples demonstrate a fundamental truth: submission to jurisdiction is not inconsistent with innocence. It is how innocence is tested and, where appropriate, vindicated.
Flight from Justice Is Not Constitutionally Neutral
No credible justice system recognises deliberate absence from jurisdiction as a protected right. Extradition laws and mutual legal assistance frameworks exist to prevent accountability from being defeated by borders or convenience.
Ghanaian courts, drawing from English common law tradition, have repeatedly affirmed that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. A system that tolerates evasion of jurisdiction, especially by powerful former officials, fails that test. Justice that applies only to those without means or mobility is not justice at all.
Conclusion
The Constitution guarantees fair trial rights, not fair evasion strategies. One may come to court and exercise the right to remain silent. What one may not do, without corroding the rule of law, is refuse to come at all and insist that the justice system must wait.
Tsatsu Tsikata came. Ato Forson came. That is how constitutional democracy works.
Mercer’s argument, if accepted, would entrench a two-tier justice system, one for ordinary citizens and another for the powerful. Ghana must reject it.
By Seth Kwame Awuku
Editor’s note: Views expressed in this article do not represent that of The Chronicle
