Abronye Bail Denial, A Blow to Justice And Free Speech

The recent bail denial ruling involving NPP’s Kwame Baffoe, popularly known as Chairman Abronye, has sparked intense debate about the balance between national security and civil liberties. 

Abronye, who faces two counts of misdemeanour, was denied bail by a judge who cited concerns that his actions could destabilize the state.

Legal scholar Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare, a Democracy and Development Fellow at CDD-Ghana, has voiced strong concerns about the judgment. 

While acknowledging that Section 96(5) of Ghana’s Criminal Procedure Code gives courts the authority to refuse bail under specific conditions—such as when the accused might abscond, interfere with investigations, or repeat the offence—Prof. Asare argued that the interpretation of this law raises troubling questions about the boundaries of judicial power.

On the surface, the ruling appears to have a solid legal foundation. However, Prof. Asare suggested that beneath this veneer lies a more complicated picture. 

“The accused was not charged with treason or terrorism, but with misdemeanours. Yet the court elevated the matter to a national security threat, invoking the position of the IGP and warning that the accused’s words could destabilize the state.” 

Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare

In a surprising move, the judge justified the decision by referencing George Orwell’s classic novel Animal Farm and a well-known quote from former Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe about “freedom after speech.” 

Prof. Asare believes such literary references, while evocative, are a poor substitute for rigorous legal reasoning. “A judgment should persuade by law, not by political analogy,” he stressed.

The judge also cited past cases in an effort to show consistency. These included one that occurred under President Akufo-Addo and another involving a journalist from Wontumi TV. 

In both instances, the accused individuals were remanded for two weeks after making offensive remarks about political leaders. 

While consistency is often valued in judicial decisions, Prof. Asare argued that repeating questionable rulings only deepens systemic flaws. “If the earlier decisions were questionable, repeating them does not cure the flaw.”

Remand Truly Necessary?

At the heart of Prof. Asare’s critique is the issue of proportionality. Ghana’s Constitution protects freedom of expression but allows certain restrictions in the interest of public order. 

However, these restrictions must be necessary and proportionate to the harm they seek to prevent. Prof. Asare questioned whether remanding Abronye was the least restrictive option available.

“Was remand the least restrictive means available here? Did the chairman’s comments truly pose a present and demonstrable risk to national security, or was ‘national security’ invoked as a convenient trump card?” 

Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare

He highlighted that the judgment overlooked these crucial issues. 

While Prof. Asare did not defend Abronye’s actions, he firmly criticized the comments made about the Inspector General of Police (IGP), describing them as highly reckless and irresponsible. 

He stressed that accusing the IGP of corruption without evidence is unacceptable and that no political leader, especially a party chairman, should lower the national conversation to mere insults and unfounded allegations.

Despite the inflammatory nature of Abronye’s statements, Prof. Asare argued that the fundamental issue before the court was not the content of his speech but whether a citizen should be denied bail for such comments. 

“By treating insults as security threats, the court risks chilling free speech and blurring the line between sharp political criticism and criminal conduct.

“Orwell’s words, meant as satire, are ironically turned into justification: some speech is more equal than others. But in a constitutional democracy, the principle must remain that all citizens are equal before the law, even when their words sting the powerful.”

Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare

Balancing Security and Freedom Amid Abronye’s Bail Denial

Prof. Asare concluded that although the ruling may technically align with the law, it ultimately weakens the core principles of justice and democracy. 

He emphasized that the judiciary has a critical responsibility to strike a balance between safeguarding state security and protecting individual freedoms. 

He stressed that while the law permits the denial of bail, the Constitution demands the defense of citizens’ rights, and it is the court’s duty to uphold both with careful judgment rather than political rhetoric.

Section 96(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code explicitly outlines the circumstances under which bail can be denied: if the accused is likely to abscond, interfere with investigations, or repeat the offence. 

Prof. Asare noted that none of these conditions appeared to be met in Abronye’s case.

What was before the court, he stressed, was offensive speech. “Despicable, yes, but not grounds for turning a misdemeanour into a national security crisis,” he concluded.

READ ALSO: Singer Laments Audiences Now Attend Live Concerts Finding Faults