Mohammed Aboutrika is a retired professional footballer who played as an attacking midfielder and a forward and was a skilful dribbler, feared by many teams he played against.
In the aftermath of ‘Abu Trica’s’ arrest, a viral video is circulating online that has scandalised me, in that it raises serious questions about the mode of arrest and subsequent interrogation: gross violations of hallowed constitutional and human rights principles.
What is particularly alarming, if the footage is accurate, is the fact that the lead interrogator is said to be a lawyer and a senior management member of the Cyber Security Authority.
Constitution
Under the 1992 Constitution, the moment of arrest triggers a cluster of non-derogable safeguards.
Article 14 requires that a person who is arrested must be informed in a language that he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of his right to a lawyer of his own choice.
The Constitution guarantees personal liberty and protection against arbitrary detention. Ghana’s Criminal Procedure Code and related statutes similarly regulate how arrests must be conducted and set limits on the use of force.
From the viral footage and contemporaneous reports, at least three clear protections appeared to have been compromised.
First, there is the right of access to counsel. International standards, including Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Ghana is party, and the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, require that suspects be informed promptly of their right to legal assistance and be allowed to consult a lawyer without undue delay.
The video appears to show the interrogation continuing despite the suspect’s inability to consult counsel; media accounts state he was questioned “without a lawyer” during arrest.
Denial or unreasonable delay in access to counsel is not a technicality: it removes an essential safeguard against coercion, undermines the ability of the suspect to exercise the right to silence, and risks producing evidence that is unreliable or unlawfully obtained.
Second, the manner of the interrogation raises concerns about the acceptable use of force and treatment in custody.
Ghanaian law permits necessary force for arrest, but it also forbids excessive or degrading treatment.
International human rights instruments — the ICCPR and the UN Convention against Torture and other relevant UN guidance — prohibit torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.
Visual evidence of a handcuffed suspect being aggressively interrogated in public can amount to public humiliation and, depending on what occurred, could cross the threshold of ill treatment. Any use of force should be strictly proportionate, necessary and documented.
Third, the public display and dissemination of the arrest footage raises due process and privacy issues. Even where an arrest is lawful, exposing a detained person in handcuffs before any judicial determination risks deep reputational harm and prejudices the presumption of innocence — a cornerstone of both Ghanaian constitutional law and International criminal procedure.
Article 14 of the ICCPR requires that everyone charged with an offence be presumed innocent until proven guilty; public theatrics by arresting authorities can undermine that.
Arrest
If the viral footage is accurate, then the arrest of Frederick Kumi illustrates why safeguards exist: to prevent abuses, preserve dignity and secure credible justice.
The task now falls to oversight institutions, defence counsel and the courts to examine the conduct of the operation and to ensure that constitutional and international standards are respected, not only in this high-profile case but in every arrest that follows.
The availability of the video footage informed the world at large of what transpired during the arrest; a fact we would never have known if the incident had not been recorded. It is about time our demand that police interrogations be recorded is taken seriously.
In next week’s article, we will examine the remedies available to Frederick Kumi under Ghanaian law, given the circumstances of his arrest, if the video footage is indeed proven to be accurate.
As stated, there are three clear-cut protections within Ghanaian law and international law which appear to have been compromised.
We will also address the thorny and very current issue of extradition, given the involvement of the United States in this case.
The writer is a lawyer.
E-mail: georgebshaw1@gmail.com
Source:
www.graphic.com.gh
