High bail amounts in recent years have effectively denied liberty to many Ghanaians awaiting trial. Courts are imposing financial conditions so severe they act as pre-trial punishment, violating fundamental rights. This trend has become more pronounced over the last eight years.
These excessive bail conditions often involve astronomical cash sums or difficult requirements for sureties. They also include strict travel or reporting rules. These measures go against the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and presumption of innocence. Many accused persons cannot afford these amounts, leading to de facto pre-trial detention.
This situation challenges Ghana's economic and legal landscape. The right to personal liberty is guaranteed under Article 14(1) of the 1992 Constitution. The presumption of innocence is also a core principle, stated in Article 19(2)(c). Historically, some offenses were not bailable. However, a 2016 Supreme Court ruling removed this automatic restriction.
The Supreme Court has emphasized that bail decisions must be judicially exercised. They must not be arbitrary or capricious. Courts should consider factors like the likelihood of appearance for trial. They should also assess the risk of interfering with witnesses or committing further offenses. Using bail as a form of punishment or tying it to charge sheet sums is not supported by law.
The pattern of imposing bail sums in tens or hundreds of millions of Ghana cedis is a major concern. This is particularly evident in high-profile corruption and economic crime cases. Such amounts are often unpayable for most accused persons or their sureties. This turns bail into a tool that prevents liberty for those without financial means.
This practice undermines constitutional safeguards. It negates bail's purpose of protecting liberty pending trial. It transforms a safeguard into a mechanism for pre-trial detention. This infringes on Article 14 (liberty) and Article 19 (fair hearing) rights. The discretion to grant bail must be exercised reasonably. It should not be a tool for retribution or deterrence.