National Organiser of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Henry Nana Boakye, popularly known as Nana B, has strongly criticised the Circuit Court’s decision to remand the party’s Bono Regional Chairman, Kwame Baffoe (Abronye DC), describing it as a disregard for basic principles of criminal justice.

In a statement issued after reviewing the full certified ruling, Nana B argued that the judgment undermines global standards on bail and tramples on constitutional guarantees of the presumption of innocence.

He stressed that bail is not meant to punish accused persons but to secure their attendance in court, especially in cases involving misdemeanours.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Martin Kpebu vs Attorney General (No. 2), he noted that the purpose of bail is to uphold the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Nana B further criticised the court’s reasoning that the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) deserves elevated protection, calling it a “judicial endorsement of inequality” contrary to Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution.

“The use of the IGP’s standing to elevate the nature of the alleged crime is completely misguided.

No citizen, including the IGP, should use the penal system to settle personal scores,” he said.

According to him, the ruling was prejudicial, as it implied guilt before the evidence had been authenticated and subjected to trial.

He warned that the court had effectively decided the case at the bail stage, thereby undermining procedural safeguards that place the burden of proof on the state.

He also rejected the court’s justification that remand was necessary for consistency with earlier political speech cases, describing it as proof of “an unrestrained thirst to curtail the liberty of citizens in politically charged cases.”

Nana B took particular issue with the judge’s reliance on common sayings such as “freedom ends where my nose begins” and “freedom after speech,” calling them “outmoded notions” unfit for a 21st-century court.

On the court’s claim that Abronye might commit a similar offence if granted bail, Nana B argued it was speculative and without legal foundation.

He cited Okoe v Republic [1976], which held that predicting future offences is “so speculative and hazardous that no court of justice should embark on such an inquiry.”

Quoting U.S. jurisprudence referenced in the case, he concluded that bail is not meant to keep accused persons in jail “upon mere accusation until it is convenient to give them a trial,” but rather to ensure liberty until guilt is proven.