“Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it.” – Proverbs 3:27
The news of William Baah’s acquittal spread quickly. The former Assembly Member for Denkyira Obuasi, who had been serving a life sentence for allegedly abetting the murder of Major Maxwell Mahama, walked out of prison a free man. A unanimous panel of the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had misdirected the jury, a serious error that made the original conviction unsafe.
As the public processed the ruling, another question emerged with equal force. If Baah has lost years of his life to a conviction the Court of Appeal now says should never have been entered, is he entitled to compensation? Can the State make amends when its own processes erase a person’s liberty and stain their reputation?
This is more than the story of one acquitted man. It is a reflection on the justice system itself and how it confronts its own imperfections. It is a test of whether the State accepts responsibility when justice arrives late. Courts are human institutions. They do their best within the limits of law, evidence and procedure, but like all human institutions, they can make mistakes.
The Constitution and Wrongful Imprisonment
Article 14 of the 1992 Constitution is the anchor of Ghana’s protection of personal liberty. It forbids arbitrary arrest and detention and insists that no one be deprived of freedom except in accordance with law. But the framers did not end there. They anticipated the possibility that lawful procedures could still produce wrongful outcomes. So they added Article 14 clause 7.
Under that clause, when a person has served all or part of a prison sentence and wins an acquittal on appeal, the appellate court may send a certificate to the Supreme Court recommending compensation. The Supreme Court may then, after reviewing the facts, award an amount it considers appropriate.
It is a simple idea with profound significance; that, sometimes the State gets it wrong, and when it does, it must be prepared to take responsibility.
But this is where many get the law wrong. An acquittal, even after time has been served, does not automatically entitle a person to compensation. Article 14 clause 7 gives courts the power to award it, but not an obligation. It is a matter of discretion, not certainty.
Why Compensation Is Not Automatic
Many assume that once an appellate court overturns a conviction, the next step is compensation. The Constitution does not say so. In fact, it goes out of its way to avoid such an interpretation. Both the appellate court and the Supreme Court are granted the freedom to decide whether compensation is justified.
The wording is important. The Constitution says the appellate court “may certify,” and the Supreme Court “may award.” These words are permissive, not mandatory. It means an acquittal alone is not enough. Something more must be demonstrated; something that justifies the extraordinary remedy of compensating a person who has already passed through the full machinery of lawful trial and conviction.
So the real issue is: what is the “something more”?
How the Courts Determine Whether Compensation is Deserved
Over the years, Ghana’s courts have applied article 14(7) with great caution. They generally look for a serious or substantial miscarriage of justice. A minor technical error, even one that leads to an acquittal, is rarely enough. The courts try to distinguish between acquittals that arise because the prosecution simply failed to meet its burden of proof, and acquittals that reveal that the accused should never have been arrested, charged or convicted in the first place. That distinction is crucial.
If the evidence from the beginning pointed strongly to innocence, or if the prosecution’s case was fundamentally baseless, the courts are more likely to consider compensation. The landmark case of Dodzie Sabbah v The Republic demonstrates this vividly.
Sabbah was arrested in 1993, spent eight years on remand, and was later convicted and sentenced to death. He ultimately spent more than ten years behind bars before the Court of Appeal discovered the truth, that there was not a single piece of evidence connecting him to the crime. His conviction had been a complete failure of justice. It was oppression masquerading as prosecution. The Supreme Court concluded that he was plainly innocent and awarded compensation; a global sum intended to recognise the injustice, even though the amount was modest by today’s standards.
That case teaches a simple lesson: the more glaring the miscarriage of justice, the stronger the case for compensation.
Another factor is whether the State acted oppressively or recklessly. If investigators, prosecutors or the trial court ignored clear evidence or pursued charges without basis, it strengthens the argument for compensation.
Determining the Amount
When courts decide to award compensation, they do not follow a fixed formula. Instead, they look broadly at the harm. The period of incarceration, the severity of the charge, the stigma of being labelled a violent criminal, the psychological trauma, the opportunities lost, and the damage to family life all matter.
But courts also exercise restraint. They try to avoid creating a situation where every overturned conviction automatically becomes a multi-million-cedi claim. The Sabbah case reflects this balancing act. Although he sought a much larger sum, the Supreme Court awarded GH¢35,000, a figure meant to provide redress without opening floodgates.
What This Means For the Baah Acquittal
Whether Baah can successfully seek compensation depends on how the courts interpret the misdirection that led to his acquittal. If the error was so serious that it rendered the entire trial unfair, then he may have a foundation to pursue compensation. If the misdirection points to a deeper failure of justice, his claim becomes stronger.
Whether Baah can successfully seek compensation depends on how the courts interpret the misdirection that led to his acquittal. If the error was so serious that it rendered the entire trial unfair, then he may have a foundation to pursue compensation. If the misdirection points to a deeper failure of justice, his claim becomes stronger.
Justice Delayed Should Not be Justice Denied
The Baah acquittal has reopened an essential national conversation. Wrongful convictions do not only imprison individuals; they imprison families, reputations and futures. A justice system must always confront the cost of its errors. Article 14 clause 7 is Ghana’s guarantee that even when justice delays, it can still speak. And when it speaks, it must not withhold good from anyone to whom it is due.
