Saturday, 13 September

Prof. Kwaku Azar criticises court’s denial of bail for Abronye over ‘intemperate speech’

Politics
Wig

Legal scholar Prof. Kwaku Azar has criticised a ruling by Judge Bright Acquah of the Accra Circuit Court denying bail to the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP) Bono Regional Chairman, Kwame Baffoe, popularly known as Abronye DC.

Abronye is facing two counts of misdemeanour after allegedly making reckless accusations against the Inspector-General of Police (IGP).

On Friday, the court ordered him to be remanded for two weeks, citing national security concerns.

In a detailed commentary, Prof. Azar questioned the legal reasoning behind the decision, arguing that the court stretched the definition of “national security threat” beyond the bounds of proportionality.

“The accused was not charged with treason or terrorism, but with misdemeanours.

Yet the court elevated the matter to a national security threat, invoking the IGP’s position and warning that the accused’s words could destabilise the state,” he wrote.

He criticised the judge for relying on literary references—including George Orwell’s Animal Farm and a famous quote from former Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe—rather than constitutional doctrine or precedent.

“Judgments should persuade by law, not by political analogy,” Prof. Azar stated.

The law professor further argued that while Abronye’s remarks were “despicable” and unbecoming of a political leader, the core issue before the court was whether a citizen should be denied bail for speech, however reckless.

“Our Constitution guarantees freedom of expression but allows restrictions in the interest of public order.

Restrictions, however, must be necessary and proportionate,” he said, adding that remand should not be the default response to “intemperate speech.”

Prof. Azar also faulted the court for citing earlier similar remand cases to justify consistency, saying that “repeating questionable decisions does not cure the flaw—it entrenches it.”

 

He concluded that while the ruling may be “legally defensible,” it was “jurisprudentially shaky,” warning that courts risk chilling free speech if they conflate insults with genuine threats to national security.

Source: classfmonline.com/Cecil Mensah