The recent social media firestorm surrounding Adentan Circuit Court judge Angela Attachie (Mama Bobi III) after she remanded a nurse for two weeks has ignited fierce public debate and rightly so. The case involves the Ghana Police Service charging a nurse identified as Salomey Awity Bafoh, alongside Barbara Asantewaa Kodua (popularly known online as “Ghana Jollof”), with abetment of crime, namely the publication of false news contrary to Sections 20(1) and 208 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).
While public interest in high-profile criminal prosecutions is healthy for a democracy, BrakoPowers Law Hub believes much of the commentary online has crossed the line from legal disagreement into personal vilification of the judge. As legal commentators and citizens, we must step back, examine how the criminal process works under Ghanaian law, and protect the integrity of the bench.
Fact vs. Fiction: What the Charge Sheet Actually Says
A widespread narrative circulating online claims that the nurse was charged with conspiring to overthrow the government. This claim is factually inaccurate. A careful reading of the official charge sheet reveals that the nurse (the 1st accused) was charged with abetment of false news. The charge sheet noted that the 2nd accused, who remains at large, allegedly “threatened to overthrow the government [and] burn Ghana, amongst other things.” Nowhere in the charge sheet and supporting facts was it alleged or stated that the nurse was planning or conspiring with the 2nd accused to overthrow the government. In criminal jurisprudence, the charge sheet lawfully placed before the court is the sole subject of legal interrogation, not sensationalised commentary, public misinterpretation, or statements made outside the courtroom.
Judicial Discretion and the Law on Bail
The trial judge acted fully within her legal authority. Under Ghanaian criminal jurisprudence, granting or refusing bail is never an automatic entitlement; it is a matter of judicial discretion. While Article 14 of the 1992 Constitution guarantees personal liberty, that right is not absolute. Section 96 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30) gives judges explicit authority to grant or withhold bail based on statutory criteria. So, when a judge remands an accused person to allow law enforcement to conduct or conclude investigations, she is exercising statutory powers conferred on her office by Parliament and nothing else.
Emotional Sympathy vs. Statutory Criteria
Much of the public outrage stems from emotional sympathy, specifically highlighting that the accused person is a practising nurse or has young dependants at home. While these factors naturally evoke human empathy, having dependants or belonging to a respected profession is not a statutory ground for granting bail under Act 30. When evaluating a bail application, the court is legally bound to assess specific criteria, including whether the accused is likely to appear for trial, the severity of the alleged offence, the strength of the preliminary evidence, the risk of witness tampering, and the overriding demands of public safety and order. If a judge concludes that remanding an accused person is necessary to protect the investigation, refusing bail is legally sound, regardless of public sympathy.
Evaluating “Frivolous” Charges in the Proper Forum
Another major grievance online is that the charges filed under both Sections 20(1) and 208 of Act 29 are “frivolous” or disproportionate. To the layperson scrolling through social media, a charge may look trivial on the surface. This is expected. However, under our legal system, the power to determine whether a charge is frivolous, legally untenable, or unsubstantiated belongs strictly to the trial judge, not the court of public opinion. A judge cannot throw out a case at the plea stage simply because the public deems it minor or a misdemeanour. The legal process requires the judge to examine the charge sheet, evaluate the prosecution’s facts, and determine whether a proper case exists. If the charges are indeed baseless, the law provides procedural remedies, such as an application to strike out the charge or a submission of no case at the close of the prosecution’s evidence, to resolve the matter on the basis of sworn testimony rather than online outrage.
Critiquing Rulings Without Attacking the Individual
There is a fundamental line between critiquing a legal ruling and launching a personal attack on the judge who delivered it. If an accused person or the public feels a remand order or bail refusal was overly harsh or legally flawed, the legal system provides an immediate remedy: appealing the order to a higher court or filing a fresh application for bail at the High Court. That is how the rule of law functions. Questioning a judge’s personal integrity or attacking her stool name simply because a temporary procedural ruling is unpopular damages public confidence in the entire judicial system. We must critique the legal reasoning, not vilify the person on the bench.
The Danger of the Afenyo-Markin Precedent
Equally concerning is the trend of public figures and politicians driving public hostility against judicial officers. A clear example of this dynamic is the precedent set when senior political figures, such as Alexander Afenyo-Markin, publicly attacked and threatened disrespect toward a sitting Circuit Court judge over a remand decision. When political leaders publicly call out judges over rulings that conflict with political or popular sentiment, it sets a dangerous example for the public. Politicians, as officers of the court and public leaders, have a duty to uphold the dignity of the judiciary. Subjecting judges to public intimidation threatens judicial independence. If judges begin deciding bail or remand applications out of fear of political hostility or social media lynching, the rule of law collapses for everyone.
Protecting the Integrity of the Bench
Judges cannot enter the media arena to defend their decisions. They speak strictly through their written rulings and court records. The growing habit of attacking judges for performing their statutory duties must stop and this must stop NOW. An independent judiciary remains the last bulwark of protection for the ordinary citizen. We can challenge court decisions through the proper appellate channels and debate legal principles, but we must never tear down the bench to satisfy social media outrage or political aspirations.
Depoliticising the Ghana Police Service for Public Trust
BrakoPowers Law Hub believes that much of the public scepticism that triggers these explosions of outrage stems from a deep-seated perception that police prosecutions are driven by political interests rather than impartial law enforcement. To restore public confidence, Ghana must pursue structural reforms in the Ghana Police Service to insulate it from political influence. Under Article 202 of the 1992 Constitution, the Inspector General of Police (IGP) serves at the pleasure of the President, creating an institutional vulnerability where police actions can be perceived as partisan mandates. Parliament should amend the legal framework following the provisions of Article 190 to give the IGP a fixed, non-renewable tenure, subject to Parliamentary approval and removal only on grounds of misconduct or incapacity, similar to a Supreme Court judge. Decoupling police leadership from political patronage will ensure that charge sheets, arrests, and prosecutions command the unreserved respect of all Ghanaians, allowing the law to be enforced without suspicion of political bias.
The Need for Legislative Reform: Amending False News Provisions
Beyond structural police reforms, Parliament must urgently confront the statutory root of these controversies: the continued reliance on Section 208 of Act 29 and Section 76 of the Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775). These criminal provisions prohibiting the publication of false statements or electronic communications likely to cause “fear and alarm” or public disturbance are inherently vague, overbroad, and dangerously subjective. Because key statutory terms lack objective legal definitions, these provisions grant state actors wide latitude to weaponise criminal law against speech that merely displeases or embarrasses public authorities.
Furthermore, maintaining these subjective criminal offences is incompatible with Ghana’s international human rights obligations under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. International legal standards demand that restrictions on free expression be strictly defined, necessary, and proportionate. Repealing or substantially amending Section 208 of Act 29 and Section 76 of Act 775 to align with international standards will eliminate weaponised prosecutions while leaving civil defamation remedies intact to handle private grievances.
Promoting Responsible Citizenship and Political Restraint
Defending the judiciary does not mean silencing public commentary. Active civic participation is the lifeblood of a democracy, and citizens must remain empowered to discuss national affairs, scrutinise public policies, and question state actions. However, constitutional liberties carry an equal duty of responsible citizenship. Expressing dissent or critique must be done within the boundaries of civil, reasoned discourse rather than reckless misinformation, personal slander, or targeted harassment of judicial officers.
In equal measure, leadership must start at the top. Political parties across the spectrum must demonstrate institutional discipline by respecting the bounds of the law and actively encouraging their members and sympathisers to do the same. When political parties convert court rulings into partisan battlegrounds or incite followers against the bench, they weaken the very democratic framework that grants them legitimacy. Political leaders must model respect for judicial processes, ensuring that public debate educates rather than polarises.
Stay Informed with BrakoPowers Law Hub
At BrakoPowers Law Hub, we advocate for legal literacy, judicial independence, and constructive legal debate in Ghana.
Be First to Comment