Investigative journalist Manasseh Azure Awuni has raised concerns about the legal and logical justification for the detention of Oliver Barker-Vormawor, given that his case is still pending a final determination.
Awuni questions what legal basis or common sense supports holding Barker-Vormawor in custody while the matter remains unresolved.
He further questioned whether the state is implying that Barker-Vormawor, who did not flee after being charged with treason, is now considered a flight risk following his arrest over skirmishes during a protest.
“Oliver Barker-Vormawor was arrested in 2022 and charged with treason felony after he made a Facebook post that was considered inciteful by the state. The state denied him bail after his arrest and kept him in custody for a long time, drawing criticism from many. Since 2022, he has been going to court.
“He even filed a process in court, and the court granted him access to his passport to travel out of the country. He returned and has been attending court”.
Manasseh Azure Awuni
Awuni argued that, based on the available evidence, Oliver Barker-Vormawor has not demonstrated any intention to flee or violate his bail conditions in relation to the case.
As such, he questioned whether this lack of evidence was taken into account by the judge when deciding to remand him in police custody.
The investigative journalist further inquired about the judicial process leading to the detention of all the protestors.
He raised concerns about whether individual assessments were made to consider the unique circumstances of each protestor before the judge issued a blanket order for their detention.
Awuni questioned the fairness and legality of such a broad decision, which seemed to disregard the possibility that not all protestors posed the same level of threat or risk, yet were all “dumped in custody” without proper evaluation.
Awuni Questions Detention Justifications for Protestors
Furthermore, Manasseh Azure Awuni questioned the basis for treating all the protestors as potential flight risks or individuals likely to tamper with evidence, which is often the rationale provided by the police for detention.
He expressed skepticism about this reasoning, asking how it could apply in this case, especially since the roadblocks had been removed even before the protestors were arrested.
Awuni highlighted the need for specific evidence to justify such claims, wondering what, if any, evidence the protestors could interfere with at this stage.
This, he argued, weakens the credibility of the police’s argument and raises concerns about the fairness of their continued detention.
“Get it: the argument is not about whether they acted right or wrong. That will be determined during the prosecution. That’s why they have been arrested and charged.
“The argument is that our laws allow persons accused of murder to be granted bail, thanks to Martin Kpebu. Our laws also say that all these 53 protesters who have been arrested and detained are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY”.
Manasseh Azure Awuni
He emphasized that, under the law, the arrested protestors are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Awuni questioned why, despite this presumption of innocence, they remain in custody.
He raised concerns about whether their detention aligns with the legal principle that individuals should not be punished or deprived of their liberty before a trial has determined their guilt or innocence.
Awuni further challenged those supporting the detention of the protestors by asking whether they would maintain the same position if the detainees were members of their own political party or if they were their relatives.
He urged them to engage in self-reflection and consider the implications of their stance, emphasizing that the principle of justice should transcend political affiliations and personal biases.
As such, he underscored the importance of fairness and the recognition of shared humanity, regardless of differing viewpoints.
READ ALSO: Starmer Looks to Reset UK’s Ties with EU
