It is too easy to convict an accused person in Ghana. I am not even talking about the many unfortunate ones who are unable to hire lawyers to defend them. Their situation is terribly pathetic. They are usually tortured by the police before they are brought to court and pitched against trained police investigators, experts of all kinds, and lawyers, as they struggle to defend themselves. They are asked to cross-examine their accusers, and they invariably ask the wrong questions if they are able to open their mouths at all. Whereas, in other jurisdictions the criminal procedure law is predicated upon the principle that it is better to inadvertently absolve the wrongdoer than to punish an innocent person, it would seem the opposite is the situation in Ghana. If you are charged with a crime in Ghana, you would most likely be convicted than acquitted whether or not you are factually culpable. Though prosecutors must have the greater burden of proving a charge against a suspect beyond reasonable doubts, the reality in our courts is that it is easier for prosecutors to convince the courts than for defence counsel to create doubts in the minds of our judges about the prosecution’s case. This is not because the prosecution’s case is always convincing. It is because of the excessive eagerness of our justice system to—at all cost—hold someone responsible for every crime. Elsewhere, an accused person shall be advised at the very onset that he is entitled to a lawyer of his choice, and if he is unable to afford one, the state shall provide him one. The situation is different in Ghana. There is no guarantee for legal representation for the poor. This is injustice of our system. The good news is that many less-privileged accused persons may find help from HelpLaw Ghana. You may learn more at www.help-law.org. Let’s now talk about accused persons generally, whether or not they are represented in court. Our criminal procedures make it too easy to convict accused persons. In our haste to curb crime, we have accepted laws that allow the police to easily arrest a person on a mere suspicion that the person has committed a crime. Usually, the police shall caution the person that he has the right to remain silent because anything he may say may be used against him in court. However, the police shall subsequently beat up the suspect to “speak the truth.” This is described as “talk true slap.” So, after cautioning you that you may remain silent, the police would beat you up to extract a statement from you. The police shall normally write the statement for you with another police officer watching as an “independent witness.” They will then read the statement to you and ask you to sign it. When these statements are read later in court, you would realize that they have added that during interrogation, you had confessed to the crime charged. If you are lucky, you shall be brought to court after a few weeks of your arrest. Many are brought to court after a few months. The 48-hour rule in the Constitution does not have much effect. I have not heard in any court in Ghana where any police investigator has been strongly reprimanded for not bringing a suspect to court in accordance with the constitutional prescription. The suspect is now in court. His face may be swollen, and there may be other indications that he might have been tortured while in custody. The only reason why a harmless suspect in custody may be tortured is to extract information from him. However, as conspicuous as it may be that a suspect was tortured before making a statement to the police, our courts do not often question the police about the physical state of suspects. The premium is more on the endorsement of the statement than on how the statement may have been acquired. Everywhere, coerced confession must offend the community’s sense of fair play and decency. However, hardly would a police statement be disallowed in court on the basis that the statement may have been acquired illegally through duress, or by threatening the suspect with harsher punishment, or by promising the suspect of lesser punishment if he accedes to the police statement. Police investigators think they must always ensure that accused persons are convicted regardless of the strength of the evidence. That is why they always testify in court that their suspects have confessed during interrogation. Contrast our system with the practice in more developed jurisdictions, where there will not be interrogation of an accused person without his lawyer if he has asked for one. Any statements taken from an accused person without the presence of his lawyer is inadmissible in court. In Ghana, once a person is accused of armed robbery, the odds weigh heavily against him even in the courts. Lawyers cannot freely communicate with accused persons in custody without officers sitting through the meeting. In court, the charge and facts are read as if the police were at the scene when the crime had occurred. The police will usually say they had acted upon confidential information. Our laws do not require them to disclose their informants to the courts to establish credibility of the information before the accused is remanded. The police do not have to do much to get suspects remanded. At trial, our criminal practice does not mandate disclosure of all materials the prosecution shall rely on. The element of surprise is still very much tolerated in criminal trials in Ghana. For proper litigation, would it not be essential to have mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties? Must criminal trials necessarily be a battle of wits between counsel? Is it not for good reason that various safeguards have been conventionally established in criminal jurisprudence generally? Does our Constitution not provide that an accused person shall be provided with adequate facilities to prepare his defence? Judicial administrative practices also affect accused persons adversely. Imagine that you have been accused wrongly and remanded in custody in August just before the courts go on vacation for 3 months. You must have to wait until the courts resume even if your case was nearly completed before the beginning of the vacation. But accused persons also sometimes, suffer in the hands of their own lawyers. Many lawyers appear to be more interested in the money they make from their clients than to aggressively prosecute their cases. Such lawyers take up so many cases and are happy to have their cases constantly adjourned to the detriment of their clients. The attitude of these lawyers towards the suffering of their clients is best expressed by the President of the Ghana Medical Association (GMA) recently when he remarked to reporters who queried him on the doctors’ strike that people always die anyway. Keeping suspects in custody for extended periods is no news at all in our criminal justice system. When they are released, they get no compensation, and it is okay. There are more practices in our courts that do not ensure justice for accused persons. There has been much talk about reforms over the years. However, I am not sure we have made much progress. If we set very low standards for ourselves, we shall be excited with little progress. We shall do much better if the standards are higher. As I see things, our lawyers are not challenging the system aggressively enough. The best in our judges shall emerge if lawyers make more daring challenges. Those in various decision-making positions also do not appear as willing to make far-reaching reforms. Perhaps, they are afraid of the controversies that may result. This is why I think that we still have a very long way to go.