SULEMANA ELLIASU & ORS VS THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ANOR
July 4, 2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE FREDERICK A.W.K. NAWURAH
Areas of Law
- Human rights Law
- Evidence Law
July 4, 2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
The Preamble to the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use-of-Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials states thus: “Law enforcement officials have a vital role in the protection of the right to life, liberty and security of the person, as guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. ”The Applicants herein instituted the instant suit against the Respondents by way of an originating summons for the enforcement of their fundamental human rights pursuant to the provisions of Article 33 (1), Article 12, 13(1), 15(1), (2) & (3) of the 1992 Constitution, and Order 67 rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004, (C. I. 47). These constitutional provisions deal with Protection of Rights by the Courts, protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms, protection of right to life, and Respect for Human Dignity, respectively.
Article 33 (1) of the 1992 Constitution, which forms the basis for the Fundamental Human Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules under the C. I. 47, provides as follows: Article 33 — Protection of Rights by the Courts.
As the Electoral Commission began turning out the results of the poll, certain faction among the parties gathered there began to openly show their dissatisfaction with the results by chanting and slogans of disagreement
AI Generated Summary
Six residents of Techiman—Sulemana Elliasu, Abubakari Iddirisu, Alhassan Nasiru, Aremeyaw Alhassan, Alhassan Abdul-Rahman, and Paul Asue—filed an originating summons under Article 33(1) and related provisions of the 1992 Constitution to enforce their rights after being shot during the 2020 Techiman South parliamentary collation at the Bonochempem Hall. They alleged armed police and soldiers fired indiscriminately into a largely non-violent crowd, causing gunshot injuries and at least one death. The Attorney‑General, for the State and security agencies, denied firing into the crowd, claiming only warning shots in response to aggression. The Court relied on medical reports documenting gunshot wounds and video (Exhibit A) showing officers aiming below shoulder level and firing toward the crowd to find a direct nexus between state gunfire and injuries. Applying Article 13(2)’s necessity and proportionality requirements and burden-shifting under the Evidence Act, the High Court held the lethal force unjustified, recognized living persons can enforce the right to life for threatened violations, declared rights violations, ordered investigation, and awarded GH₵25,000 compensation and GH₵20,000 costs per applicant.