MARTIN KPEBU v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL
December 18, 2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AKUFFO, CJ (PRESIDING)
- ANSAH, JSC
- YEBOAH, JSC
- BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC
- GBADEGBE, JSC
- BENIN, JSC
- KOTEY, JSC
December 18, 2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
AKUFFO, CJ:-
Brief Background Facts
On 6th September 2016, the Plaintiff, in his capacity as a private citizen and a legal practitioner, pursuant to Article 2 of the Constitution, commenced the action herein against the Defendant seeking the following reliefs:
1. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of article 14(3) of the Constitution, 1992, a Saturday, a Sunday, a public holiday, anytime during a civil unrest and any other day that the courts in Ghana cannot sit (e.g. during strike by judicial service staff or during a strike by any other stakeholder that will prevent the court from sitting) would be counted in reckoning the 48 hours within which a person arrested or detained on suspicion of committing a crime and not released must be brought before a court under article 14(3) of the Constitution of Ghana, 1992.
2. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of article 14(3) of the Constitution, 1992, section 4 of the Public Holidays Act, 2001 (Act 601) is inconsistent with article 14(3) and is void to the extent of that inconsistency only.
3. A declaration that the Government of Ghana is in breach of article 14(3) of the Constitution of Ghana, 1992 for not taking steps to ensure that some courts are opened on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays for arrestees whose 48 hours of incarceration expire on the aforementioned days are brought to court for the court to determine the validity of their incarceration and to enable the arrestee to apply for bail.
4. A declaration that, on a true and proper interpretation of article 14(3) of the Constitution, 1992, certain courts must be made to sit on Saturdays, Sundays or any other day that the courts are ordinarily unable to sit due to strikes, civil unrest and other circumstances not contemplated, in order for the court to hear applications for bail.
5. A declaration that where a court is scheduled to sit on or seized with a criminal matter concerning an arrestee who is being brought pursuant to article 14(3) of the Constitution, 1992 is unable to sit in open court under circumstances of strike or civil unrest an arrestee in custody has a right to apply to a judge who has a jurisdiction to hear that kind of case for bail or for his release depending on the classification of the offence. The application may be made in chambers or any other place the judge may be found and should not be subject to filing a motion in the court, but the motion may be with the judg
AI Generated Summary
Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court of Ghana, Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo interpreted Article 14(3) of the 1992 Constitution to require that an arrested or detained person be brought before a court within forty eight hours, counting all calendar days, including Saturdays, Sundays, public holidays, and periods of civil unrest, subject to safety considerations. The plaintiff, a private citizen and lawyer, sought declarations to that effect and to compel access to courts on non working days; the Attorney General opposed, urging practical exceptions. The Court rejected implied exceptions and distinguished Mornah v Attorney General, holding that statutory or administrative closures cannot defeat constitutional personal liberty guarantees. It declared portions of the Public Holidays Act, Labour Act, and High Court Rules unconstitutional to the extent they bar sittings for personal liberty matters, rectified them to exempt “Court Services,” and directed the Chief Justice to designate courts to sit on such days. The Court clarified that police may release an arrested person where presentment within 48 hours is not possible and dismissed a requested prioritization of in custody trials, treating it as case management rather than a constitutional mandate.