An accused person should not need a rich relative with landed property before enjoying the right to bail. In Ghana, the courts, and, in some cases, EOCO as a condition for administrative bail, may require an accused person to produce several sureties, justify those sureties with landed property or other substantial assets, or satisfy other stringent bail conditions. In reality, the accused remains behind bars because the conditions are ‘impossible’ to satisfy.
Article 19(2)(c) provides that “a person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty.” If the law presumes a person innocent, then bail should not become punishment before trial. Equally, Article 14 protects personal liberty, while Article 19(1) guarantees a fair hearing within a reasonable time. Bail must therefore strike a balance between liberty and the administration of justice.
It is to ensure that an accused person appears before the court whenever required. It is not intended to punish poverty. This principle is reflected in section 96 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30).
The court considers whether the accused is likely to appear for trial, interfere with witnesses, commit another offence, or obstruct the course of justice. Ownership of landed property is not the constitutional objective of bail. The Supreme Court reinforced this principle in Martin Kpebu v.
Attorney-General, where it emphasized that the constitutional presumption of innocence requires that courts carefully protect personal liberty before conviction. Republic [2003–2004] 2 SCGLR 784, the Supreme Court reminded the courts that bail is a matter of judicial discretion, and that discretion must be exercised judicially and reasonably. Bail conditions should not become a disguised refusal of bail.
This is where Ghana should begin thinking differently. Instead of imposing onerous conditions, the country should consider electronic tracking bracelets or anklets in appropriate cases. A tracking device worn on the wrist or ankle can monitor an accused person’s movements.
Summary from source