Ghana Must ‘Completely’ Abolish Death Penalty — Madina MP Sosu  | Social

Mr Francis-Xavier Kojo Sosu, Member of Parliament (MP) for Madina Constituency, says Ghana must “completely” abolish the death penalty sentence and replace it with life imprisonment. 

He said the death penalty had outlived its usefulness and must be scrapped and urged all to push for its swift abolishment.

 “We must not be complacent. We must push the limits until Ghana becomes a complete abolitionist State,” he said.

  In a statement issued by the MP, he said it did not come as a shock when on Wednesday, January 24, 2024, a court in Ghana imposed a sentence of death by hanging on six persons convicted of the offences of conspiracy to commit high treason and committing high treason.

It said the sentence was made because treason and high treason remained capital offences in the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.

The statement said the judgement had raised concerns regarding the status of the Death Penalty in Ghana in the light of gains made by the country to abolish the death penalty for ordinary crimes.

It said though Ghana retained the Death Penalty in its Constitution, the said provision was otiose until January 24, 2024, when the court convicted six persons for treason and high treason and sentenced them to death by hanging.

“This raises serious questions about Ghana’s commitment to fully abolish the Death Penalty. I believe it is time for us to completely abolish the death sentence from the 1992 Constitution,” he said.

The statement said in July 2023, Ghana’s Parliament voted to amend the country’s criminal offences act, removing the use of capital punishment for crimes, including murder, genocide, piracy and smuggling.

It said it was good news because Ghana had not executed anyone in 30 years and all 178 persons on death row at the time of the abolition of the death penalty were all charged under the amended provisions in the Criminal Offences Act.

The statement said Wednesday’s death sentence was for conspiracy to commit high treason and committing high treason by which the six convicts must die by hanging.  

It said Article 3 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution provided for High Treason which was deemed to be committed “when any person who, by himself or in concert with others by any violent or other unlawful means, suspends or overthrows or abrogates the Constitution or any part of it, or attempts to do any such act; oraids and abets in any manner any person referred to in the law.”

The statement said since the 4th Republic, no person had ever been successfully charged and convicted under this law until the January 24, 2024 conviction.  

It said in Ghana’s laws references were made to High Treason, Treason and Treason Felony which were supposed to be different shades of treasonable offences.

The statement said while “High Treason” was defined with a penalty of death, “Treason” on the other side was not clearly defined.

It said Section 180 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), which made it clear that treason was punishable by death, said“for the purposes of this section treason shall have the meaning assigned to it by clause 3 of the 1992 Constitution.

“That is rather ambiguous because clause three creates the offence of High Treason and not Treason simplicita,” the statement said.

Article 19 (17) of Ghana’s Constitution provides that treason shall consist only in “levying war against Ghana or assisting any state, or person or inciting or conspiring with any person to levy war against Ghana; or in attempting by force of arms or other violent means to overthrow the organs of government established by or under this Constitution; or in taking part or being concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any person to make or take part or be concerned in any such attempt”.

Mr Sosu, also a legal practitioner, said that definition, notwithstanding, would be impracticable to charge someone under the provision because the statute creating the offence of treason which was section 180 of the Criminal Offences Act, contemplated a meaning other than what was provided by the article.   

He said “Treason Felony” on the other hand, was applicable to a person who “prepares or endeavours to procure by unlawful means any alteration of the law or the policy by the Government; or prepares or endeavours to carry out by unlawful means any enterprise which usurps the executive power of the State in any matter of both a public and a general nature.”

Mr Sosu said that was punishable as a first-degree felony and not necessarily by death as provided in section 182 of the Criminal Offences Act.

He said High Treason remained the only clear provision of law in Ghana’s statute books that carried the death penalty.

“Treason simplicita is ambiguous and inconsistent with Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution which says that ‘no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty for it is prescribed in a written law.’”

“The definition of Treason under the criminal code lends itself to ambiguity which is not sustainable in a criminal trial where the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. This could be part of the reasons why there has never been a successful trial of any person under these provisions in the past.”

Mr Sosu said his deepest worry as a human rights activist was that provisions relating to treason and high treason were highly political and could be used against persons who were critical of abusive and undemocratic political regimes.

“Without necessarily saying that is what applies in this case, all Human Rights Progressives must not rest until the 1992 Constitution is amended and the said provision in Article 3 removed to completely abolish the Death Penalty.”

“Sadly, Article 3 (3) of the Constitution which created the offence of High Treason is an entrenched provision that would require a referendum to change.

“Given the fact that change is a gradual process which comes by consistent and dedicated efforts, I will, with the support of CSOs and Human Rights activists, continue to advocate for review of that provision in our Constitution.”