[2015]DLSC3031 • December 1, 2015 • Supreme Court •
MARTIN KPEBU vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL
The plaintiff, a private legal practitioner, challenged the constitutionality of section 104(4) of the Criminal and Other Offences Procedure Act, 1960 (Act 30), arguing that it was inconsistent with Articles 14(1) and 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution. The section permits imprisonment without hard labour for up to six months for failure to pay a penalty arising from forfeiture of recognizance (bail bond). The plaintiff contended that forfeiture of recognizance is a civil debt and not a criminal offence, and thus imprisonment under this provision violates constitutional protections of personal liberty and the requirement that criminal offences be defined by law with prescribed penalties.
read moreDOTSE JSC: This writ, is at the instance of the Plaintiff, a private Legal Practitioner and filed pursuant to article 2 (1) and 130 of the Constitution 1992 seeking the following relief:- “On a true and proper interpretation of article 19 (11) and article 14 of the Constitution of Ghana 1992, section 104 (4) of the Criminal and other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), is inconsistent with the said articles and therefore unconstitutional.” CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS RELIED UPON At this stage, I think it is pertinent to consider the constitutional and statutory provisions that are germane to this action. Article 19 (11) of the Constitution 1992 provides as follows:- “No person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty for it is prescribed in a written law.” Article 14 (1) of the Constitution 1992 also provides thus: (1) “Every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of his person...