People Must be Informed!

The struggle for the return to constitutional rule had at its centre amongst others a craving for the unfettered rights of every individual especially the Ghanaian, access to information as when the need arises.

Democracy in its true sense of the word has come to be defined as the participation of the people in the process of governance.

 However, if practical meaning can ever be given to democracy, it must certainly involve the unreserved right of every citizen to information which would in the final analysis widen the scope of his knowledge so he can contribute effectively towards nation building.

For countless number of years, many people have been gripped by the fear of the unknown as the world keeps changing by the minute before their very eyes.

Social commentators and political activists like Kwesi Pratt Jnr. have hit the roof about the poverty of our people.

In their argument, the inability of our government to harness our resources towards addressing the social and economic difficulties which has plagued the people, the reason we have a situation where people continue to sleep on the streets of Mallam Atta market.

Nonetheless, information on how much revenue is accrued to the state as a result of our share holdings in the various mining companies is never made available or accessible to the public!

It is a healthy development that the bill for right to information has received some attention on the floor of parliament.

However, we need to accentuate that if the underlying principle for the passage of the Bill is to ensure that the public, citizens and non-citizens had access to information then Act 54 section (1) of the constitution which empowers the Attorney General with the ministerial responsibility for the implementation of that act, must be amended.

Although the Attorney General would have to hold information in trust for the people; the bill when passed into law would definitely suffer some restrictions and the right to information might be curtailed.

The argument advanced in support of this position is that, given the constitutional provision which mandates the Attorney-General to also serve as the Minister of Justice, how would he release information which borders on criminality especially when the state is involved?

How would the Attorney-General release information which might eventually require him to prosecute the state or prominent citizens of the government under which he or she might be serving?

It is for these and other reasons that it has been advocated the need for an independent body or entity to be charged with the responsibility for the effective implementation of the bill for the Right to Information if it is ever passed into law.

The right to information must be enjoyed without hindrances and all measures must be put in place to ensure that the thinking and planning that went into the drafting of that bill is never wasted.

Clara Sarpomaa Sabeng

Clara was a former intern with CHRI and is currently a student at the Institue of Journalism in Accra

Innocent Until Proven Guilty: The Case of the Pre-Trial Detainee

It is often said that one can measure the civilisation of a society by the way it treats its prisoners; however, not all those imprisoned have ever been found guilty of committing a crime.

In 2009, 28% of all people detained in Ghana were being in held by what is known as pre-trial detention. This means that the police have arrested the detainee but he or she has not yet appeared before a court. As with any democracy, the firm belief that a person is innocent until proven guilty is essential in the prevention of corruption and abuse of executive power.

The police service is neither a judge nor a jury. It cannot, and does not, decide whether a person is guilty or innocent. Under Ghana’s police code the police may arrest somebody if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime; but suspicion, of course, is not the same as guilt.

Unfortunately there is widespread belief in the common idiom of “no smoke without fire.” The problem with this view regards the fact that that an accusation, which could be true but might also be false, is generally directed at the individual. Unless that individual is you or a trusted friend or family member, it is it is all too easy to believe the accused person is simply guilty as charged. If we stop and think for a minute; however, things are not as clear cut as they may first appear.

We have all read the stories about police corruption, yet for some reason we do not equate this with the possibility of unlawful arrest. We acknowledge the current weaknesses of the police service but deem a person charged by the same police service as being guilty of a criminal offence. This does not add up. If a police officer is willing to take a bribe to forget about a traffic offence, it follows that he or she would likely accept a bribe to arrest an innocent person for a crime they did not commit.

Neighbourly disputes over land rights are frequently resolved by such methods. Here there is no come back against the police as the neighbour’s accusation provides evidence of the police officer’s ‘reasonable belief’ in the arrested person’s guilt. It is technically possible for the innocent neighbour to sue the accusing neighbour under civil law for ‘malicious prosecution’ but the practicalities of time and legal costs have meant that, in Ghana at least, this option has never, as yet, been pursued.

Sometimes the crime in question is not even a crime at all. People are often arrested, for example, for not being able to pay a debt and subsequently being charged with theft. A crucial component of the crime of theft is dishonesty, but where is the dishonesty here? Of course, if a person borrows with no intention ever to pay the money back then this can be termed theft as the borrower is clearly dishonest, but if a man loses his job and is forced to default on what he owes, he never had any intention of committing a crime as so cannot be termed dishonest. This colonial relic of locking up debtors has no place in a 20th century legal system let alone a 21^st century one such as ours.

Of course, a false accusation or incorrect charge leading to an arrest should simply be a stressful but ultimately minor inconvenience. If there is not sufficient evidence to alter the presumption of innocence then a court can simply dismiss the case. If the prosecution needs time to attempt to make a case then, so long as the accusation is not of an extremely serious nature (murder, for instance), the court will grant bail to the accused until the next court date. The Constitution states that an arrested person is to be brought before a court within 48 hours thus the options of bail or dismissal become available. The reality; however, is very different.

Spending just 48 hours in a filthy and overcrowded prison cell would be harsh enough for any person, let alone one who has been wrongly arrested. The writer visited one such police station in the Accra area and found over thirty people detained in a small police cell. The temperature was unbearable, the sewage pipe from the toilet was leaking all over the floor, and there was a serious cockroach infestation. Food, water, and healthcare are not provided by the police authorities as the government lacks the will to provide funding in this area. This lack of will stems from a lack of public support for those who are deemed criminals before they are even tried before a court of law.

The constitutionally protected 48 hour time limit is almost never met. A lack of police resources, judicial commitment, legal aid, and political will to change has led to the continuation of an unjust and immoral status quo. In the one police station I visited, I met persons who had been detained for several months without any sort of court hearing. There are many other cases where this unlawful imprisonment can be measured in years, not months, and certainly not in hours.

The criminal justice system exists to protect the innocent as much as to punish the guilty. We must remember that guilt must be proven, and not simply presumed.

Luke Blindell, CHRI Africa

This Article was also published in The Chronicle on the 14/07/2011

An Arresting Dilema: Paying the Price of Responsibility

Nelson Mandela once famously proclaimed that “no-one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones”.

Most of us cannot even begin to comprehend what it would be like to spend a day and night locked up in a jail; still less an overcrowded cell which lacks basic sanitation and the amenities necessary for sleeping and eating. The US State Department has described the conditions in Ghana’s prisons as “harsh and often life threatening”. Police stations are often no better.

Twenty-four hours in such conditions would be bad enough, let alone over thirteen years. This was how long a man, never charged with nor convicted of an offence, spent in a cell until CHRI intervened to secure his release. To this day “Eric” (not his real name) claims his innocence. He says he was not, as was originally alleged, a perpetrator of a violence, but rather the victim of an attack who had been forced to act to defend himself.  There were no witnesses and he had originally handed himself into the police. The Police Service has lost the case docket so there is no evidence either way. To compound matters the investigating officer has long since been transferred. It appears that in his thirteen years of detention, he was never formally charged (let alone tried) and often missed court appearances due to lack of vehicles or simple disinterestedness on the part of the Police. Indeed, on a number of the occasions when he actually made it to court, his case was not even called.

Eric went into police custody a young gainfully employed member of society with dependents. Upon his release he is a broken middle-aged man, bitter about his treatment and unable to work due to illness.

In a criminal case such as Eric’s there must be a formal charge, trial by jury and verdict and sentencing. The Constitution (Article 14(3)) guarantees that a person who is arrested or detained must either be released or brought before the court within forty-eight hours. Suspects formally charged in court must face trial by a court within a “reasonable amount of time” in accordance with Article 14(4).

As few ordinary people imagine that they will ever end up in a police or prison cell, there is little political or public interest, let alone sympathy, for the plight of those held in custody or on remand. Many question whether such formal processes actually matter. The person was arrested: surely there can there be no smoke without fire?

But due process does matter; the right to a fair trial is a fundamental human right. Those accused of crimes are not sub-human. It is unlawful and against the public interest to take away someone’s liberty for long periods without observing the proper police and court processes. To do so discredits the justice system and has a profound, detrimental economic impact on the individual, his family, community and the state, not least due to the direct costs of keeping a person in jail.

If a person does not have the reason for his arrest and his rights explained to him, that arrest may constitute an unlawful arrest. Similarly, if a person spends more than forty-eight hours in a cell without having been charged or waits for years in jail on remand for his trial to start, this may also be unlawful detention. This is important because under Article 14(5) of the Constitution, a person who is unlawfully arrested or detained has an “enforceable right to compensation”. However, despite a plethora of candidates, there are no reported, successful claims to the Constitutionally-mandated compensation.

There are two reasons why claiming compensation is important. First, and foremost, lengthy incarceration can dramatically change the financial fortunes of a person. In the worst cases, like Eric’s, it can leave someone unemployable, either as a result of physical or psychological illness or due to the cloud of humiliation and suspicion that may forever float above him. Secondly, if former detainees came forward and successfully sought compensation from the state, the Government may be provoked to reform the law and policing practices, improve accountability and invest properly in the criminal justice system to make it more effective and efficient.

The Constitution is clear. If the state violates the rights of its citizens, whether they are suspected criminals or otherwise, it must pay compensation. The central thrust of this argument is not that it is desirable for precious resources to be diverted from Ghana’s social and economic priorities to fund compensation windfalls for those accused of crimes. It is an argument for the Government not violating those rights in the first place.

CHRIS LANE , CHRI, Africa Office

Right To Information – a Necessary Tool for Democracy

Unlike in the UK and in Nigeria, which both passed their freedom of information bills after long periods of civil society activism, Ghana’s Right to Information (RTI) Bill is still stuck before Parliament. Whilst it is necessary that a strong bill, without unnecessary exemptions, is properly formulated, it is about time that we Ghanaians start enjoying the chunk of benefits that accompanies the RTI.

The bill, if passed, would give power to the governed to know what goes on in the public offices which should help to make governments more accountable. In short the RTI bill will help to create a fuller and more dynamic democracy.

Politicians should not forget that, they are elected to work towards the betterment of those they govern. They are not elected to suit their own whims and caprices. It seems politicians always want to take the electorate for granted, but they should not forget that the electorate are becoming more discerning day in and day out.

The current NDC government and their NPP predecessors have overseen a country which has been hailed internationally as an African democratic success story, yet both parties have done little to move the bill forward. Democracy was defined by Abraham Lincoln as; government of the people, by the people, and for the people. From this definition, one could clearly see that Ghana is government of the people, by the people, but not for the people, in that the voice of the majority is not heard no matter how high they scream.

Laws are made to be obeyed, if not they become useless, as stipulated in Article 21 (1) (f) of the 1992 constitution of Ghana that “All persons shall have the right to Information, subject to such qualifications and laws as are necessary in a democratic society.”

In a democracy, the people are sovereign – they are the highest form of political authority. Power flows from the people to the leaders of government, who hold power only temporarily. As a result politicians must always remember that they are only the temporary custodians for the information they hold in trust for the people

Under a democratic government, citizens have an obligation to become informed about public issues, to watch carefully how their political leaders and representatives use their power and express their own opinions and interests.

Democracy can never be practiced to the fullest if there is no transparency, and accountability that is requisite in a proper democracy. The more they prolong the passage of the bill, the more the citizens conceive the idea that, politicians have something to hide, but no matter how thick a forest may be, the tortoise will surely find its way to its home.

Are Ghanaians safe if even in a democracy, they still cannot exercise their rights as citizens to know? Let us all rise in unity to support this worthy course, for it’s my right, it’s your right, it’s our right to know.  

Edward Balami, Ghana Institute of Journalism.

The Author wrote this article whilst on a two week placement with CHRI. See www.edwardbalami.blogspot.com for other examples of his writing.

Ghana Steps Down From UN Human Rights Council - Will Anyone Notice?

Friday the 17^th of June marked the end of the seventeenth session of the UN Human Rights Council - the last session of Ghana's five-year membership. When the Council reconvenes this September, will anyone notice Ghana's absence? Not likely.

Considered to be a leading African voice in the promotion of human rights, Ghana was elected to the Council with high expectations. Unfortunately, as its tenure at the Council ends, Ghana has neither lived up to its reputation nor the expectations. Ghana's record at the Council in the latter half of its term has been characterised by sporadic participation, occasionally negative voting practices and, most disappointingly to human rights advocates, a complete failure to be a leader at the Council.

Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) recently released the third report in its Easier Said Than Done series. The report compared pre-election pledges made by Commonwealth countries at the Human Rights Council, with each country's actual performance at the UN and domestic levels. The report found that, despite written commitments from Ghana in 2008 that, if re-elected, it would participate actively in the work of the Council, from mid-2008 until mid-2010 Ghana was neither an active participant, nor a positive player.

Over the two-year period reviewed in the report, Ghana rarely participated during Council debates. Whereas its regional neighbour, Nigeria, made frequent interventions on a wide variety of subjects - Ghana's representatives only raised their voices occasionally. For example, during the 12th session, which lasted three weeks, Ghana made a few brief statements of little consequence on international solidarity and migrant rights and congratulated two countries, Comoros and Chad, on their human rights performance. Ghana's lack of participation continued in the period following the 12th session, but spiked somewhat in the 16th session when its representatives became slightly more active.

Despite not regularly being involved in the Council's debates and discussions, Ghana did participate in one of the substantive parts of the Council's work - the voting on resolutions. Ghana's voting record was regrettable. Resolutions at the Council are divided into two categories - those that focus on human rights situations in specific countries and those that focus more broadly on a thematic issue. While there is often disagreement between countries at the Council over the value of particular thematic resolutions, country-specific resolutions are certainly the most controversial. Certain countries vote against nearly every critical country-specific resolution while voting in favour of weak resolutions that deflect attention from their own poor human rights situations and those of allies. In effect, these countries work against the Council's mandate, because resolutions that increase international scrutiny upon rights-abusing regimes are one of the Council's most important tools.

Disappointingly, Ghana occasionally joined these countries in voting in favour of uncritical resolutions on the Democratic Republic of Congo in March 2009 and Sri Lanka in May 2009. Ghana also voted to keep the Sri Lanka resolution weak, by opposing amendments which called for investigations into human rights violations perpetrated during the most recent Sri Lankan war. Ghana further chose to abstain from voting in 2009 on an important resolution to extend the mandate of the Council's expert on Sudan. While many African countries are shy to vote in favour of applying international pressure on other African countries, Mauritius and Zambia, both African Commonwealth countries, voted in favour of keeping international scrutiny on Sudan, while Ghana abstained, reversing its previous positive vote in 2007. Ghana likewise abstained from voting on the landmark 16th session resolution which will put more international scrutiny on Iran, while Ghana's regional neighbour, Senegal, and a fellow Commonwealth African country, Zambia, voted in favour.

Zachary Abugov, CHRI Programme Officer, Delhi Office

This is an edited article from the original. The original has been published by a number of news carriers including all AllAfrica.com See http://allafrica.com/stories/201106230656.html

Denying Ghana’s Disabled their Rights. The Disability Act: 5 years on

June 2011 saw the publication of the first-ever World report on disability. The WHO report reveals that of the one billion people in the world who have a disability, approximately 150 million encounter significant adversities in their daily lives.

In Ghana, an estimated 2.5 million people live with a disability, making them the country’s largest minority. People with disabilities face severe social stigma, creating a culture of entrenched discrimination.  Ostracised from society, many live under the misguided belief that their lives are not worthy of respect. This should not be the case in a country that five years ago this week passed a law designed to address this inequality.

June 23rd marks the fifth anniversary since the passing of the Persons with Disability Act in Ghana. It should be a time for celebration and reflection upon the great strides that have been made in improving the lives of Ghana’s disabled. However the great strides expected have instead turned out to be a few faltering steps. Rather than celebrate, we lament this inexcusable failure of the government to fulfil the commitment it has made to its most vulnerable citizens.

The Act confers a host of legal rights upon people with disabilities in Ghana. It guarantees access to public places, free general and specialist medical care, education, employment and transportation. The Act also regulates the commitments and other responsibilities of public and private service providers. However five years on, implementation has been at best poor, and in many areas non-existent. Despite the government’s legal obligation to provide free education and establish special schools for disabled children, many children with disabilities are still excluded from any form of education. Earlier this year, a visit by the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) to 233 schools revealed that no disability facilities were provided, denying disabled children access to any form of education.  The healthcare system is unequipped to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities and the state of mental healthcare is pitiful. Commitments made to employment creation have been ignored and where persons with disabilities do gain employment they continue to face many constraints.

Despite repeated calls from civil society to formulate a comprehensive disability policy in Ghana, no such framework exists. There can be no excuses for this. The Act provided for the establishment of the National Council on Persons with Disability to formulate policies and strategies for broad implementation.  However it has taken three years for the government to establish the Council and almost five years for guidelines for the disbursement and management of the now 3% share of the District Assembly Common Fund assigned to persons with disabilities to be produced. A recent study by SEND Ghana found that out of the districts that are aware of the existence of the 3% DACF, only a third of people with disabilities in these district know how to access it.

Implementation of legislation takes time but the delay we see in Ghana’s disability law is excessive. Disabled people continue to have their rights abused on a daily basis, as a direct result of the government’s failure to uphold the very rights they themselves have conferred upon this already vulnerable group. Running parallel to the delay in implementation is the continued deferral of government to ratify the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which sets an international standard recognising the equal worth and dignity of all persons living with a disability. Despite being on the first countries to sign the Convention on it’s opening day, it was only four years later, in December 2010 that the government indicated its commitment to ratification. Six months later, no further progress has been made.

People with disabilities have the right to live independently in a society that actively encourages their participation in all areas of life.  If Ghana wants to preserve its reputation as a respected country it must protect and uphold human rights for all of its citizens.  On the fifth anniversary of its passing, we call on the NCPD to take urgent action to ensure that the legal obligations enshrined in the Persons with Disability Act are met. We urge the government to ratify the CRPD and send a message to the world that they are serious about the human rights of all people with disabilities.

Alison Picton, CHRI Africa

LGBT Situation in Kenya

Last week The UN passed a resolution on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 23 in favour, 19 against, and 3 abstentions. It requests that the High Commissioner should establish a committee to document discriminatory laws and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Commission will be active in all regions of the world, including Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda who all actively voted against its formation. The Commission will report on how international human rights law can be used to end violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

In addition the UN will convene a panel discussion during the nineteenth session of the Human Rights Council which will pick over the commission’s findings and suggest follow on recommendations to the High Commissioner.

In the meantime here is CHRI’s assessment of the LGBT situation in Kenya.

Kenya

Law that Criminalises Homosexuality Penal Code of the Laws of Kenya, Rev. 2009[1] Under section 162 it is an offence to have carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature or of an animal; or to permit a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature.  Whoever commits this felony is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years, or in the case that said carnal knowledge was without the consent of the person, or with consent obtained by force, intimidation or false representations, imprisonment for twenty one years. Under section 163 it is an offence to attempt to commit any of the offences specified in section 162, whoever commits this felony is liable to imprisonment for seven years. Under section 165 it is an offence for any male, whether in public or private, to commit any act of gross indecency with another male person, or to procure or attempt to procure another male person to commit any act of gross indecency with him.  This felony is liable to imprisonment for five years. Under the Sexual Offences Act of 2006, section 3 criminalises rape by a woman or man who intentionally and unlawfully commits an act which causes penetration with his or her genital organs; and the person does not consent to this penetration, or the consent is obtained by force or intimidation.  Whoever is guilty of this felony is liable to imprisonment from ten years to life.

Practical Consequences of the law In February 2010 police crashed a ‘gay wedding’ and arrested five men.[2] GALCK – Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Kenya is a group which seeks to promote recognition, acceptance and defend the interests and rights of LGBTI organizations and their members including their health rights. http://galck.org/

Constitutional Clause on Equality or Right to Privacy Constitution of Kenya, 2010[3] Article 27 guarantees equality before the law, where equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms.  It also guarantees the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law.  Neither the State nor a person shall discriminate directly or indirectly against any person on any ground, including race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, dress, language or birth. Article 24. expands upon limitations to the rights and freedoms of the constitution and affirms that right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights shall not be limited except by law, and then only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including the nature of the right or fundamental freedom; the importance of the purpose of the limitation; the nature and extent of the limitation; and the need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and fundamental freedoms of others. Article 28 guarantees the innate and inherent dignity of every person and the right to have that dignity respected. Article 31 guarantees to every person the right to privacy including having their family or private affairs unnecessarily revealed or the privacy of their communications infringed.

A Step Forward for Nigeria, a Standstill for Ghana

Sad to say, but Ghana will have to take a backseat to Nigeria on progressive legislation. Late last month marked a significant date on the Nigerian democratic calendar. After collaborative efforts on behalf of the Media Rights Agenda, Open Society Justice Initiative, Right to Know Movement, Nigeria, and OSIWA, Nigeria’s President Goodluck Jonathan passed the Freedom of Information Bill into law.

This road to freedom of information was not an easy one. In 1999 the FOI Bill was presented to Nigeria’s fourth National Assembly; however there was little development for several years. In 2003 the bill was again presented to Nigeria’s fifth National Assembly, and by 2007 was signed by both Chambers. This seeming progression, however, revealed itself to be a chimera when President Olusegun Obasanjo rejected the bill, stating that it would be a threat to national security. Nevertheless, after over eleven years of steadfast persistence, on 28 May 2011, Nigeria marked itself as the sixteenth member of the Commonwealth, and the seventh country of Africa, to have passed a law granting a right to information.

So what does this development mean for the country of Nigeria? By granting a right to information, people have the right to access, and public institutions must proactively disclose, government-held public records and information that was hitherto considered confidential, and therefore kept away from public scrutiny. People can access information from departments of the government, corporations, and companies in which government has a controlling interest.

                                              President Goodluck Jonathan who passed Nigeria's FOI Bill
With this law, private companies utilizing public funds, providing public services or performing public functions are open to public scrutiny. Right to information grants insight into goals and decisions of the government, allowing for more informed decisions by the public; thus reinforcing a true democratic society. This means that traditionally closed governments and reluctant bureaucrats will have to fundamentally change their ways of working. Openness and not secrecy will have to reign. Bringing this change about is the greatest challenge now before the nation.

The Bill also provides protection to whistleblowers, ensuring immunity of any person disclosing malfeasance by their employers. This is particularly important as a great many powerful people, in long term, cozy relationships with each other, will find their questionable benefits under threat from disclosure.

Coming after so long, it is almost churlish to point out some of the law’s infirmities, but a glaring one is the absence of an Information Commission. The Information Commission works to oversee the implementation of the law and adjudicate cases of complaints and appeals when people do not receive information or are aggrieved by the decisions of the public institutions. Instead, the law requires someone who has been refused information to go to high court or the Federal Court. This expensive, time-consuming process is by no means possible for the majority of people.

Even as Nigeria has enacted a freedom of information law, Ghana still lags behind. After six long years Ghana’s first Bill, drafted in 2003, was finally approved by the Cabinet – thus allowing it to be presented before Parliament. However, despite the seeming progression, Parliament claimed it had never received the Bill. As of 2009 a startling sense of déjà vu was sensed as the bill was once again approved by Ghana’s Cabinet and presented to Parliament for consideration, this time successfully.

For the moment Ghana’s FOI bill lies stagnant in Parliament, and Ghanaian citizens are far from placid. On 28 January 2010 Accra was flooded with approximately 500 people, all demonstrating a united desire to see the FOI bill passed by Parliament. Headed by Mr. Seth Ablorsu, an executive member of the Trade Union Congress, and Nana Oye Lithur, a Human Rights activist, the demonstrators identified themselves as “Coalition on the Right to Information”.

As it stands, Ghana’s draft Bill contains many critical deficits that could render superficial citizen’s right to know. For instance, the staggering list of items restricted from public enquiry (as many as 53) severely limits information available for scrutiny. For example, according to section 5 (1), “Information is exempt if it is for submission or has been submitted to the Office of the President or the Vice-President”. The Bill goes on to exclude information pertaining to the Cabinet or Armed Forces. By restricting access to presidential deliberations, Ghanaians are unable to make informed decisions about their political leaders. Moreover, without enforced transparency it makes it difficult to unveil potential political corruption.

The unduly long time-period within which information can be made available is another matter of concern. After a request is made asking for a particular bit of information, the information officer can take up to 21 days simply to decide whether the information may be released – something that could be achieved in one day. Moreover, after the decision as to how much information can be released, it can take an additional fourteen days to deliver it.

The Ghanaian Bill also suffers the same deficiency as the Nigerian one in not having an Information Commission.

All in all, Ghana seems to be two steps behind Nigeria when it comes to a right to information. The sluggish manner in which Parliament seems to be processing the FOI Bill is a matter of unrest for many Ghanaians. If it is going to catch up, Parliament will need to let go of its lethargy, consult openly with, and listen to, a wide public, and significantly improve the pending law. The solidarity and support of various organizations as well as public demonstrations is an important step in achieving a right to know. Ghanaians are creating a loud message for their desire for human rights, and it is high time for Parliament to step up, listen and learn from their neighbours.

Chanté Blais, Canadian intern for the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in Delhi.

Aricle also published in The Chronicle, Friday 10th of June 2011. See http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=210593&comment=0#com

LGBT Situation in Ghana

Two days ago, the Director of Public Prosecutions in Ghana, Ms Gertrude Aikins, indicated that persons caught engaging in homosexual activities could be liable for prosecution.

As part of our weekly look at the LGBT situation in African here is the situation in Ghana, the home of CHRI Africa. It is interesting to note that in Ghana sexual relations between men is illegal whilst sex between two women is permitted.

If you would like to know anymore about the research that is being carried out by CHRI on the LGBT situation contact the London office at chri@sas.ac.uk or the CHRI Africa blog administrator (henry@humanrightsinitiative.org).

Ghana

Law that Criminalises Homosexuality Acts of Ghana, First Republic, Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29)[1] Section 104 criminalises unnatural carnal knowledge of any person of the age of sixteen years or over without his consent, with liability upon conviction to  imprisonment for a term of not less than five years and not more than twenty-five years.  With his consent, this is classed as a misdemeanour. Unnatural carnal knowledge is defined as sexual intercourse with a person in an unnatural manner or with an animal. Under Section 98 rape is defined as carnal knowledge of a female of sixteen years or above without her consent, with a liability upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than five years and not more than twenty five years. Under Section 101 defilement is described as the unnatural or natural carnal knowledge of any child under the age of sixteen years.  Whoever commits this felony is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years and not more than twenty-five years. Same sex sexual activity between females is legal.

Practical Consequences of the law Gay Ghana – is an open platform for gays in Ghana. http://www.gayghana.org/

Constitutional Clause on Equality or Right to Privacy Constitution of the Republic of Ghana[2] Chapter Five – Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms Under Article 12. (2) Every person in Ghana, whatever his race, place of origin, political opinion, colour, religion, creed or gender is entitled to the fundamental human rights and freedoms of the individual contained in this Chapter but subject to respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for the public interest. This right can be limited for public interest reasons. Article 17 affirms that all persons are equal before the law and shall not be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, colour, ethnic origin, religion, creed or social or economic status. Article 18 guarantees the right to privacy of the home, property and correspondence, except in accordance with law and as may be necessary in a free and democratic society for public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the protection of the rights or freedoms of others. This right can be limited for public safety reasons.