The decision of the Accra Circuit Court to remand Kwame Baffoe, popularly known as Abronye DC and serving as the Bono East Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), continues to generate sharp debate across the political and legal spectrum.
While some legal practitioners have described the move as an abuse of constitutional rights, others insist that the court acted well within the bounds of the law.
Hamza S. Suhuyin, a member of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) communication team, has strongly defended the judiciary’s stance, arguing that the persistent suggestion that Abronye’s remand is purely political is misplaced.
Writing in response to growing concerns over the handling of the case, Suhuyin dismissed what he described as a “strange logic” that because the charge against the NPP chairman is a misdemeanor, bail ought to have been automatic.
“Where from this strange logic that seeks to suggest that because the charge against Abronye DC is a misdemeanour, he ought to be entitled to bail and of which failure to grant is absurd and can only be political?”
Hamza S. Suhuyin
He stressed that while the charge may technically fall within the category of misdemeanors, it carries a likely custodial sentence, making it a matter the courts must treat with caution.
According to him, judicial discretion in granting bail is not exercised in a vacuum but guided by law, particularly Section 96 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Act 30.
“The particular charge against Abronye DC even though a misdemeanour, has a likely custodial sentence. The judge in exercising a discretion either to grant bail or not is minded by stated factors under section 96 of ACT 30, one of which is whether the accused is likely to commit a further offence while on bail”.
Hamza S. Suhuyini
He went on to suggest that even to the ordinary Ghanaian, there is a “high possibility of Abronye repeating his recklessness,” pointing to what he described as the politician’s habitual inflammatory conduct. “Especially considering the fact that this appears to be his style,” he added.
Risk of an Accused Person Absconding
Another key factor Suhuyin highlighted is the risk of an accused person absconding while on trial. He noted that Section 96(6) of Act 30 clearly outlines considerations for the court, and in this particular case, Abronye’s own history had to be taken into account.
“Interestingly, the accusation or charge against him though a misdemeanour is grave with a likely custodial sentence. Abronye’s own political asylum petitions worsened his plight as any judge would be minded by that in reaching a decision whether to grant bail or not”.
Hamza S. Suhuyin
Against this backdrop, he questioned the claim that the judiciary’s decision was politically motivated, insisting that the courts acted in line with precedent and legal principles. “So, where is the politics?” he asked.
To reinforce his point, Suhuyin drew parallels with the infamous Montie 3 case under the first Mahama administration, where the Supreme Court jailed three NDC activists for contempt.
That ruling, he argued, demonstrated the judiciary’s willingness to assert itself even under pressure, regardless of the political implications.
“Just as the judiciary rose to the occasion to defend its territory against NDC activists in the case of the Montie 3 under Mahama 1, so is the Ghana police rising to the occasion in this Abronye debacle under Mahama 2”.
Hamza S. Suhuyin
For him, the case is less about partisan persecution and more about the institutional independence of state organs under the current administration. He contended that both the police and the courts are, in fact, demonstrating their capacity to act firmly in order to protect their credibility and enforce the law.
“Our institutions know under whose Presidency they can protect and defend their institutional integrity,” he concluded, suggesting that current developments should be seen as proof that Ghana’s institutions are capable of rising above political influence.
The controversy surrounding Abronye’s case, however, remains far from settled. On one hand, critics argue that the remand of a political figure on a misdemeanor charge sets a dangerous precedent for human rights and personal liberty.
On the other hand, voices like Suhuyin’s insist that the law allows such measures when the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused warrant it.
READ ALSO: BoG Gets IMF Backing as Ghana Tightens Foreign Exchange Rules
