Re Akoto and 7 Others

Re Akoto and 7 Others
Re Akoto and 7 Others
Court	Supreme Court of Ghana
Full case name	Re Akoto and 7 Others
Decided	28 August 1961
Citation	[1961] GLR 523
Case history
Appealed from	High Court of Ghana
Appealed to	Supreme Court of Ghana
Court membership
Judges sitting	Kobina Arku Korsah ; William Bedford Van Lare ; Augustus Molade Akiwumi ;
Case opinions
Decision by	Korsah
Concurrence	Lare; Akiwumi;
Keywords
	Rule of Law ; Separation of Powers ; Judicial Review ; habeas corpus ;

Last updated August 24, 2024

The case of Re Akoto and 7 Others is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Ghana that challenged the legality of the Preventive Detention Act (PDA).^[1] The case centered on the arrest of Baffour Akoto, the then Chief Linguist of the Asantehene, along with seven others, who were detained under the Preventive Detention Act (PDA). Their lawyer, J. B. Danquah, petitioned the High Court for a habeas corpus order to secure their release, but the court denied the request.^[2] The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled that the Preventive Detention Act did not violate the Constitution and that Parliament had the authority to enact such a law, even during peacetime.^[1]^[3] The key principles of the case involve the Rule of Law, Separation of Powers, and Judicial Review.^[4]

Background

The Preventive Detention Act (PDA) was passed by Parliament in 1958, granting the executive branch the power to arrest and detain individuals without trial if their actions were deemed harmful to the state. Under this law, Baffour Akoto, the Chief Linguist of the Asantehene, along with seven others; Peter Alex Danso (alias Kwaku Danso), Osei Assibey Mensah, Nana Antwi Bosiako (alias John Mensah), Joseph Kojo Antwi-Kusi (alias Anane Antwi-Kusi), Benjamin Kweku Owusu, Andrew Kojo Edusei, and Halidu Kramo were arrested and detained on the 10 and 11 November 1959. Their detention was authorised by an order from the Governor-General, signed by the Minister of Interior under section 2 of the PDA.^[5] The grounds for their detention were allegations that they had encouraged acts of violence in the Ashanti and Brong-Ahafo regions and had associated with individuals advocating violence to achieve political aims.^[6] Baffour Akoto was notably a founding member of the National Liberation Movement (NLM), a political group that supported a federal system for Ghana.^[7]

The detainees sought legal recourse by filing for writs of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in the High Court, but their application was denied. They subsequently appealed the High Court's decision to the Supreme Court.^[5]^[6]^[7]

In the case, with Baffour Akoto and his co-appellants as the petitioners, their legal representation was led by Dr. J. B. Danquah. The respondents were represented by the then Attorney General Geoffrey Bing, with A. N. E. Amissah assisting.^[7]

The Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice Korsah, along with Justices Van Lare and Akiwumi, was tasked on 28 August 1961, with interpreting Article 13(1) of the 1960 Republican Constitution and determining its consistency with the Preventive Detention Act of 1958, under which the appellants had been detained without trial for actions "prejudicial to the security of the State."^[7]

Legal arguments

J. B. Danquah raised seven key points before the Supreme Court on behalf of the appellants:

The High Court judge exceeded his jurisdiction by refusing the application without ordering a formal return.
The Habeas Corpus Act of 1816 required the court to investigate the truth of the facts upon which the Governor-General, Kwame Nkrumah, justified the arrest order.
The Minister of Interior, A. E. Nkumsah, who signed the order on behalf of the Governor-General, acted with malice.
The grounds for detention did not qualify as "acts prejudicial to the security of the State."
The Governor-General was restricted by the Criminal Procedure Code from ordering the arrest and detention of the appellants without trial, except under its provisions.
The Preventive Detention Act, 1958, exceeded the powers granted to Parliament by the Constitution, or it violated the President's solemn declaration of fundamental principles upon taking office.
The Preventive Detention Act, enacted during peacetime without an emergency declaration, violated the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]

Attorney General Geoffrey Bing on the other hand defended the Preventive Detention Act, asserting that the President's declaration upon assuming office was a moral obligation without legal enforceability. He equated the Ghanaian Parliament's sovereignty to that of the UK Parliament, suggesting that Parliament had the authority to enact laws necessary for state security, including the Preventive Detention Act, even in peacetime.

Supreme Court ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling as follows:

The affidavits provided sufficient facts to determine whether the writ should be issued, and the judge was not obligated to make a formal return in every case.
The Habeas Corpus Act of 1816, though generally applicable, did not apply because the Preventive Detention Act granted full discretion to the Governor-General. The court's only concern was the legality of the order; if the order was lawful, so was the detention.
Allegations of bad faith against high-ranking state officials required positive evidence, which was lacking in this case.
The term "security of the state" encompassed more than just defense against foreign threats; it also included preventing internal disruptions. The Preventive Detention Act was distinct from the Criminal Code, focusing on preventing future harmful acts rather than punishing past ones.
Article 13(1) of the Constitution imposed a moral, not legal, obligation on the President, similar to the Queen of England's Coronation Oath. The declaration did not constitute a bill of rights or create enforceable legal obligations.
Article 20 of the Constitution affirmed Parliament's sovereignty, with legislative powers limited only by entrenched articles.
Therefore, the Preventive Detention Act, 1958, did not violate the Constitution, and Parliament had the authority to enact such a law even in peacetime.^[5]^[7]^[8]^[9]

Aftermath

Following the court's verdict, Baffour Akoto and the seven other detainees remained imprisoned until 1966 when the Nkrumah government was overthrown in a coup d'état. Although Geoffrey Bing was the Attorney General in the Nkrumah Administration, he claimed to have opposed the enactment of the Preventive Detention Act of 1958 (No. 17). Bing stated, "My argument against the Act (PDA), which had some support within the Cabinet, had no impact on the majority of its members or on Dr. Nkrumah, who supported the idea from the outset" (Bing, 1968). According to Bing, the then Minister of Information, Kofi Baako, also opposed the introduction of the PDA. However, the majority of Cabinet members, including Nkrumah himself, supported the passage of the PDA Bill. Bing reiterated his opposition to the PDA in his 1968 book, Reap the Whirlwind.^[10]

In recognition of the case's significance, the Asantehene, Otumfuo Nana Osei Tutu II, established the Re: Akoto Memorial Lectures, an annual event organised by the Ghana School of Law. This lecture series is dedicated to promoting research, fostering study, and educating the public on the evolution of Ghana's constitutional democracy and human rights.^[7]

Related Research Articles

Habeas corpus is a recourse in law by which a report can be made to a court in the events of unlawful detention or imprisonment, requesting that the court order the person's custodian to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether their detention is lawful.

Joseph Kwame Kyeretwie Boakye Danquah was a Ghanaian politician, scholar, anglophile, lawyer and statesman. He was a politician in pre- and post-colonial Ghana, which was formerly the Gold Coast.

Loh Kooi Choon v Government of Malaysia (1977) 2 MLJ 187 is a case decided in the Federal Court of Malaysia concerning the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and also involving the extent to which Parliament can amend the Constitution. The decision was delivered by Federal Justice Raja Azlan Shah.

William Ofori Atta, popularly called "Paa Willie", was a Ghanaian founding member of the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC) and one of the founding fathers of Ghana as one of "The Big Six" detained by the British colonial government in the then Gold Coast. He later became a Minister for Foreign Affairs in Ghana's second republic between 1971 and 1972.

The National Liberation Movement was a Ghanaian political party formed in 1954. Set up by disaffected Ashanti members of the Convention People's Party, who were joined by Kofi Abrefa Busia, the NLM opposed the process of centralization whilst supporting a continuing role for traditional leaders. It was led by Baffour Akoto, linguist to the Asantehene. The party gained some support in the 1956 Gold Coast general election and became the third largest party in the Assembly with 12 seats, behind the Convention People's Party and the Northern People's Party.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's detention under color of law. The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. A persistent standard of indefinite detention without trial and incidents of torture led the operations of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to be challenged internationally as an affront to international human rights, and challenged domestically as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution, including the right of petition for habeas corpus. On 19 February 2002, Guantanamo detainees petitioned in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus to review the legality of their detention.

Presidential elections were held for the first time in Ghana on 27 April 1960. The elections were held alongside a referendum on creating a republic with an executive presidency. The winner of the elections would become the country's first president if the new republican constitution was passed, which it did.

The National Security Act of 1980 is an act of the Indian Parliament promulgated on 23 September 1980 whose purpose is "to provide for preventive detention in certain cases and for matters connected therewith". The act extends to the whole of India. It Contains 18 sections. This act empowers the Central Government and State Governments to detain a person to prevent him/her from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of India, the relations of India with foreign countries, the maintenance of public order, or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community it is necessary so to do. The act also gives power to the governments to detain a foreigner in a view to regulate his presence or expel from the country. The act was passed in 1980 during the Indira Gandhi Government.

<i>Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs</i> 1988 Singapore Court of Appeal judgement

Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs is a seminal case in administrative law decided by the Court of Appeal of Singapore in 1988. The Court decided the appeal in the appellants' favour on a technical ground, but considered obiter dicta the reviewability of government power in preventive detention cases under the Internal Security Act ("ISA"). The case approved the application by the court of an objective test in the review of government discretion under the ISA, stating that all power has legal limits and the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power. This was a landmark shift from the position in the 1971 High Court decision Lee Mau Seng v. Minister of Home Affairs, which had been an authority for the application of a subjective test until it was overruled by Chng Suan Tze.

The Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 is an act of Congress that significantly expanded the jurisdiction of federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus. Passed February 5, 1867, the Act amended the Judiciary Act of 1789 to grant the courts the power to issue writs of habeas corpus "in all cases where any person may be restrained of their liberty in violation of the constitution, or any treaty or law of the United States." Prior to the Act's passage, prisoners in the custody of one of the states who wished to challenge the legality of their detention could petition for a writ of habeas corpus only in state courts; the federal court system was barred from issuing writs of habeas corpus in their cases. The Act also permitted the court "to go beyond the return" and question the truth of the jailer's stated justification for detaining the petitioning prisoner, whereas prior to the Act courts were technically bound to accept the jailer's word that the prisoner was actually being held for the reason stated. The Act largely restored habeas corpus following its 1863 suspension by Congress, ensuring that anyone arrested after its passage could challenge their detention in the federal courts, but denied habeas relief to anyone who was already in military custody for any military offense or for having aided the Confederacy.

The remedies available in a Singapore constitutional claim are the prerogative orders – quashing, prohibiting and mandatory orders, and the order for review of detention – and the declaration. As the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore, the High Court can hold any law enacted by Parliament, subsidiary legislation issued by a minister, or rules derived from the common law, as well as acts and decisions of public authorities, that are inconsistent with the Constitution to be void. Mandatory orders have the effect of directing authorities to take certain actions, prohibiting orders forbid them from acting, and quashing orders invalidate their acts or decisions. An order for review of detention is sought to direct a party responsible for detaining a person to produce the detainee before the High Court so that the legality of the detention can be established.

The National Reconciliation Commission was established in January 2002 by the Parliament of Ghana. The goal of the commission was to establish an "accurate, complete and historical record of violations and abuses of human rights inflicted on persons by public institutions and holders of public office during periods of unconstitutional government." The Commission was formed after a new democratic party won the elections in 2000. The Commission covered human rights violations in Ghana from 1957 to 1993. It looked into government abuses and military coups staged by former president Jerry Rawlings. The members of the Commission worked until the end of 2004.

Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651 (1892), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality of some provisions of the Immigration Act of 1891. The case was decided against the litigant and in favor of the government, upholding the law. The case is one of two major cases that involved challenges to the Immigration Act of 1891 by Japanese immigrants, the other case being Yamataya v. Fisher.

Article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, guarantees a prohibition against banishment and the right to freedom of movement.

Abdul Latif Mirza v. Government of Bangladesh 31 DLR (AD) 33 is a case of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. The case concerns preventive detention. The court asserted the principles of natural justice.

Kwaku Baah is a Ghanaian lawyer and a politician. He was a deputy minister in the second republic, the minority leader in the third republic and vice chairman of the National Democratic Congress in the fourth republic. He also served as a member of parliament for Nkawkaw Constituency in the second and third Republic of Ghana.

Robert Samuel Blay, was a Ghanaian barrister and judge. He was a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ghana during the First Republic. He is often referred to as the first Nzema lawyer. He was president of the Ghana Bar Association on two occasions and also a member of the first board of directors of the Bank of Ghana.

F.X. v The Clinical Director of Central Mental Hospital and Another[2014] IESC 1; [2014] 1 IR 280 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the court "clarified two important points about the habeas corpus jurisdiction":

that the High Court's jurisdiction does lie in respect of detention orders made by courts of coordinate jurisdiction; and
although the Constitution does not allow for stays to be placed on orders of habeas corpus, "orders can be made for controlling the release of persons who are incapable of protecting themselves."

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in which the Court ruled that Article 21 of the Constitution did not require Indian courts to apply a due process of law standard. In doing so, the Court upheld the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, with the exception of Section 14, which provided that the grounds of detention communicated to the detainee or any representation made by him against these grounds cannot be disclosed in a court of law.

References

1 2 Fombad, Charles Manga (2017). Constitutional Adjudication in Africa. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-881021-6.
↑ Yankson-Mensah, Marian (8 April 2020). Transitional Justice in Ghana: An Appraisal of the National Reconciliation Commission. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-94-6265-379-5.
↑ Serwaa Boateng, Francisca. "Ghana: Re: Akoto & 7 Others - Who Are the "7 Others" and Why Should It Matter?". HG.org. Retrieved 23 August 2024.
↑ Legum. "Legum | Case Briefs for Constitutional Law". www.legum.app. Retrieved 23 August 2024.
1 2 3 4 Bassiouni, M. Cherif; Motala, Ziyad (27 November 2023). The Protection of Human Rights in African Criminal Proceedings. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-63774-0.
1 2 3 Addadzi-Koom, Maame Efua; Addaney, Michael; Nkansah, Lydia A. (10 December 2022). Democratic Governance, Law, and Development in Africa: Pragmatism, Experiments, and Prospects. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-031-15397-6.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Akwaa, Nana Kwadwo (24 April 2021). "A summary of the history behind the Re-Akoto Memorial Lectures". Modern Ghana. Retrieved 23 August 2024.
1 2 "RE Akoto AND 7 Others - Cases - RE: AKOTO AND 7 OTHERS, [1961] GLR 523 Division: IN THE SUPREME - Studocu". www.studocu.com. Retrieved 23 August 2024.
1 2 "RE: AKOTO AND 7 OTHERS". Judy.Legal. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
↑ Philip Afeti, Korto (18 June 2021). "Geoffrey Bing, Ghana's Former Attorney- General who was Detained and Deported in 1966". Modern Ghana. Retrieved 23 August 2024.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[:1-1] 1 2 Fombad, Charles Manga (2017). Constitutional Adjudication in Africa. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-881021-6.

[2] Yankson-Mensah, Marian (8 April 2020). Transitional Justice in Ghana: An Appraisal of the National Reconciliation Commission. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-94-6265-379-5.

[3] Serwaa Boateng, Francisca. "Ghana: Re: Akoto & 7 Others - Who Are the "7 Others" and Why Should It Matter?". HG.org. Retrieved 23 August 2024.

[4] Legum. "Legum | Case Briefs for Constitutional Law". www.legum.app. Retrieved 23 August 2024.

[:2-5] 1 2 3 4 Bassiouni, M. Cherif; Motala, Ziyad (27 November 2023). The Protection of Human Rights in African Criminal Proceedings. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-63774-0.

[:3-6] 1 2 3 Addadzi-Koom, Maame Efua; Addaney, Michael; Nkansah, Lydia A. (10 December 2022). Democratic Governance, Law, and Development in Africa: Pragmatism, Experiments, and Prospects. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-031-15397-6.

[:0-7] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Akwaa, Nana Kwadwo (24 April 2021). "A summary of the history behind the Re-Akoto Memorial Lectures". Modern Ghana. Retrieved 23 August 2024.

[:4-8] 1 2 "RE Akoto AND 7 Others - Cases - RE: AKOTO AND 7 OTHERS, [1961] GLR 523 Division: IN THE SUPREME - Studocu". www.studocu.com. Retrieved 23 August 2024.

[:5-9] 1 2 "RE: AKOTO AND 7 OTHERS". Judy.Legal. Retrieved 23 August 2023.

[10] Philip Afeti, Korto (18 June 2021). "Geoffrey Bing, Ghana's Former Attorney- General who was Detained and Deported in 1966". Modern Ghana. Retrieved 23 August 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]