The Ghana Police Service occupies a very central position in maintaining public order and the protection of life and property in Ghana.
To discharge this mandate, the police are granted extensive powers of arrest, detention, and reasonable use of force.
These powers are necessary for effective law enforcement; however, they also carry a high potential for abuse if exercised without strict constitutional control.
This article is part one of a series on police powers and human rights in Ghana.
This first article in the series is to make an examination of the scope of the powers of the police under Ghanaian law and evaluate their compatibility with the fundamental human rights guarantees contained in the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.
Subsequent articles in the series will focus extensively on areas of police powers such as searches, arrests, detentions, use of force and then human rights provisions such as bail applications and how these are maintained.
The relationship between police power and human rights lies at the core of constitutional governance.
The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana establishes Ghana as a democratic state founded on constitutional supremacy, the rule of law, and respect for fundamental human rights.
Within this framework, the police are entrusted with law enforcement and public security functions that necessarily involve coercion and restraint of individual liberty in the discharge of their lawful duties.
For this reason, police powers constitute one of the most constitutionally sensitive forms of state authority.
Necessity of police power
The Constitution does not deny the necessity of police power but rather regulates its exercise.
Article 14 guarantees the right to personal liberty and further provides an exhaustive list of circumstances in which liberties may be lawfully restricted.
Article 15 further protects the dignity of the human person and expressly prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment as well as torture.
These provisions impose substantive limits on police authority and require that all exercises of power conform to constitutional standards.
The Supreme Court has consistently emphasised that fundamental rights bind all organs of state.
In Tuffuor v Attorney-General [1980] GLR 637, the Court affirmed a broad and purposive approach to constitutional interpretation aimed at advancing the protection of individual rights.
For instance, in the case of the arrest of any person in Ghana, Ghanaian law expressly requires that the arrest be founded on a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a criminal offence.
Article 14(2) of the Constitution further requires that an arrested person must be informed promptly, in a language they understand, of the reasons for their arrest and of their right to legal representation.
These guarantees are reinforced by the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30).
In practice, however, arrests are frequently carried out without adequate explanation or lawful basis, particularly during police swoops, routine patrols, and public demonstrations.
A good example of such arrests is the arrests made by the Ghana Police Service during the protests popularly dubbed “Occupy Julorbi House” in 2023. Such practices amount to arbitrary deprivation of liberty and undermine the constitutional requirement of reasonable suspicion, which operates as a substantive safeguard against abuse of power.
Contentious issue
A contentious issue that requires immediate redress is the use of force by the police, especially during arrests.
The use of force by the police is permitted only where it is necessary and proportionate to the circumstances.
Reports of excessive force during arrests and crowd control operations suggest that this power is sometimes exercised disproportionately, potentially violating the constitutional right to life under Article 13.
Equally troubling is the use of arrest and detention as instruments of extortion, which constitutes a gross abuse of authority and severely undermines public confidence in law enforcement institutions.
There are safeguards that have been put in place to help protect the fundamental rights of the Ghanaian.
Judicial oversight is a key mechanism for the protection of fundamental rights.
The courts under the 1992 Constitution have adopted a robust rights-protective stance.
In Mensah v Attorney-General [1997-98] 1GLR 227-281, the Supreme Court affirmed that fundamental human rights are directly enforceable against the state and that violations attract constitutional remedies.
This jurisprudence underscores the principle that police powers are subject to constitutional scrutiny and judicial control.
Constitutional safeguard
One of the most important constitutional safeguards against abuse is the forty-eight-hour rule under Article 14(3), which requires that an arrested person be brought before a court of competent jurisdiction within forty-eight hours.
This requirement reflects the constitutional commitment to due process and the presumption of innocence guaranteed under Article 19.
Detentions beyond this period without judicial authorisation are unconstitutional.
Nonetheless, prolonged detention remains a recurring problem, particularly for suspects who lack legal representation or financial resources, effectively resulting in punishment before trial.
To reinforce accountability, Article 14(5) entitles a person who is unlawfully arrested or detained to compensation.
In Appiah v Attorney-General, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that violations of the right to personal liberty cannot be justified by administrative convenience or investigative delay.
The availability of compensation serves both a remedial and deterrent function in the enforcement of constitutional rights.
Constitutional protection also extends to the conditions of detention. Overcrowded cells, inadequate sanitation, denial of medical care, and restricted access to legal counsel may amount to degrading treatment in violation of Article 15.
Such conditions also place Ghana in breach of its international human rights obligations, including those under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which informs the interpretation of constitutional rights.
Accountability mechanisms such as judicial review, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), and internal police disciplinary bodies exist, but their effectiveness remains limited in practice due to several factors.
Fear of retaliation, lack of legal awareness, and prolonged litigation often deter victims from seeking redress, thereby perpetuating impunity.
In conclusion, the legitimacy of police authority in Ghana’s constitutional democracy depends not on the breadth of coercive power, but on strict fidelity to the Constitution and respect for human dignity.
Effective policing and human rights protection are mutually reinforcing.
Strengthening human rights training, enforcing constitutional limits on detention, expanding access to legal aid, and ensuring meaningful accountability for misconduct are essential to aligning police practice with the constitutional values of the 1992 Constitution and the rule of law.
