The legal questions surrounding the Strategic Mobilisation Limited (SML) Corruption case have taken a new turn as two suspects in the yet-to-be-filed criminal case have dragged the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) to the Human Rights Division of the High Court.
The applicants, Christian Tetteh Sotie, Managing Director of SML and a former Technical Advisor to the Commissioner-General of the Ghana Revenue Authority, and Isaac Crentsil, former Commissioner of the Customs Division and now a Manager at SML, are asking the court to declare that the OSP acted unlawfully when it directed them to pose for photographs while holding placards bearing their names during investigations.
Their challenge raises a deeper question within Ghana’s justice system , on how to pursue corruption without violating the very rights the Constitution was designed to protect.
Let us walk through the legal web and understand what this case means.
The Right to Dignity and Privacy
Every person in Ghana is entitled to fundamental rights. Among them, the Constitution protects the right to dignity and privacy. Article 15 declares that the dignity of all persons shall be inviolable and that no one shall be subjected to treatment that detracts from their worth as a human being.
The protection of privacy, found in article 18, guards against unnecessary intrusion into a person’s life. Together, these rights insist that even when the state is investigating wrongdoing, it must do so with respect for human value.
Humiliation, whether by words or images, strikes at that principle. The law recognises that the protection of dignity is not suspended when a person becomes a suspect. It remains an enduring right that shapes how state power is exercised.
The Presumption of Innocence
Closely linked to dignity is the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by article 19. Until a competent court declares otherwise, every person is to be treated as innocent. This is not merely a procedural rule but a moral restraint on how suspects are spoken of, handled, or portrayed in public.
Ghana’s Supreme Court has reinforced this point in several decisions. In Martin Kpebu (No. 2) v Attorney-General, the Court described the presumption of innocence as a due process requirement that must guide every stage of criminal justice. And in Adu Gyamfi v Attorney-General, the Court warned that a suspect cannot be condemned before trial, for to do so is to sin against the Constitution itself.
International law follows the same reasoning. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires public authorities to avoid statements or actions that suggest guilt before trial.
What the OSP is Allowed to Do
The Office of the Special Prosecutor was created to strengthen Ghana’s fight against corruption, and the law grants it certain investigative powers. Under the Office of the Special Prosecutor (Operations) Regulations, 2018, officers may “profile” suspects by recording personal details, taking fingerprints, and photographing them as part of the investigative docket. Such powers are meant for identification and documentation, not for public exhibition.
What the law leaves open is the question of how far those powers extend once photographs or records leave the investigative file. It is this tension between internal procedure and public exposure that lies at the heart of the present debate.
Balancing the Tension: Transparency v Dignity
The OSP occupies a ubique position in Ghana’s justice system. It was created to confront corruption and ensure accountability at the highest levels of public office. Transparency is therefore essential to its credibility, and Ghanaians have a legitimate interest in knowing how corruption cases are handled, particularly when they involve state funds.
Yet the demand for openness must be weighed against the duty to protect individual rights. Courts around the world have cautioned that the desire to inform the public must not override the presumption of innocence. In Allenet de Ribemont v France, the European Court of Human Rights held that while authorities may brief the public on ongoing investigations, they must do so with discretion and respect for human dignity.
The challenge, then, is not whether the OSP should inform the public, but how it should do so. The Constitution requires both transparency and restraint, and finding that balance remains one of the most delicate tasks of modern governance.
A Constitutional Question? Possibility of the Apex Court’s Intervention
Article 33 of the Constitution gives the High Court power to enforce fundamental human rights. However, when a case raises a constitutional question, such as whether an investigative regulation can limit the rights to dignity, privacy, and presumption of innocence, that issue may be referred to the Supreme Court under article 130 for interpretation.
Here, if the High Court determines that these matters go beyond enforcement and require constitutional clarification, the case will have to be referred to the apex court for a final ruling. Such a decision would not only settle the limits of the OSP’s investigative powers but also guide courts and investigative agencies in balancing public accountability with the protection of personal rights.
Conclusion: Justice in Sight
Every democracy wrestles with the balance between power and principle. Ghana’s Constitution was written to ensure that the pursuit of justice never overshadows the humanity of those involved. The ongoing conversation around the OSP and the SML officials is part of that continuing effort to keep justice both visible and decent, firm yet fair.
We await, with keen interest, how this matter unfolds.
