Private legal practitioner, Justice Abdulai, has stressed that only a court order can, in limited circumstances, come close to overriding constitutional protections granted to arrested persons in Ghana.
Speaking on JoyFM’s Top Story on Monday, July 6, the lawyer was responding to concerns over whether administrative or superior directives could justify bypassing constitutional safeguards in the arrest of former National Food Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO) Chief Executive Officer, Hanan Abdul-Wahab Aludiba.
According to him, even where a court issues directives, judges remain bound by the Constitution and must ensure that their orders do not contradict constitutional provisions.
“In this, the only time anything close to that can happen would be an order from a court of law. And now, I say this with the caveat that even with that, a court would be mindful if there’s a constitutional provision to the contrary, a court would be mindful of that provision and so would not go contrary to the constitutional provision,” he explained.
Justice Abdulai also cautioned security operatives against treating arrest duties as purely mechanical instructions, insisting that they are expected to exercise basic judgment in the field.
“I admit that some of these young men and women who are sent to effect arrest do not have any authority, that I admit, they don’t have authority, but they are not robots. This is what we need to let our security agencies know, they are not robots. If you are sent to effect an arrest, it doesn’t mean that you do not have brains,” he said.
He further argued that security officers must ensure transparency during arrests, especially when family members, spouses, or lawyers are present at the scene.
According to him, those present should be informed of the arrest and provided with basic details such as the destination of the suspect and contact information for follow-up, a practice he said is essential for accountability and to prevent confusion.
“If you go effecting an arrest and there is a lawyer or even the family, the wife, the spouse, only one person present, common sense would dictate that these persons should be informed. They should know that you are effecting an arrest of a person, it’s a lawful arrest, you are taking them to station A or B, any contact person that they may have to talk to in case of that is person A or B,” he said.
The private legal practitioner warned that failure to follow such procedures blurs the line between lawful arrest and kidnapping.
He stressed that proper identification and communication during arrests are critical safeguards in a constitutional democracy.
“Otherwise, you can never tell the difference, you can never distinguish between kidnapping and an arrest. There’s a clear distinction between these two.
“The difference is that one is regulated by law, one is under the shadow of darkness. If you cannot operate under one, then you are a kidnapper. And kidnappers must be treated in accordance with the law,” he stated.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
