The Wenchi High Court has ordered the government to pay a total compensation of GH¢150,000 to six persons who suffered various degrees of injuries during the violence that characterised the 2020 parliamentary election in the Techiman South Constituency of the Bono East Region.
The court presided over by Justice Frederick Nawurah, held that the compensation for the six persons was in respect of “violation of their right to life and infliction of psychological trauma from being shot at by the state security forces.”
The court further ordered the state and investigative bodies to investigate the incident leading to injuries to Sulemana Elliasu, Abubakari Iddrisu, Alhassan Nasiru, Aremeaw Alhassan, Alhassan Abdul-Rahman and Paul Asue, and bring the perpetrators to book.
Again, the court awarded a cost of GH¢20,000 each in favour of the six persons.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Nawurah held that the violence at Techiman South on December 8, 2020, leading to gunshot wounds on the six persons violated their fundamental human rights.
“I grant a declaration that the injuries respectively inflicted on Sulemana Elliasu, Abubakari Iddrisu, Alhassan Nasiru, Aremeaw Alhassan, Alhassan Abdul-Rahman and Paul Asue by gunshots at the Techiman South Constituency Collation Center, carried out by the security forces/personnel deployed by the State of Ghana to the Techiman South Collation Center, on the 8th day of December 2020, violated their respective rights to life under Article 13(1) of the 1992 Constitution, and their respective rights on the State to respect and uphold their respective rights to life and human dignity, under article 12(1) of the 1992 Constitution,” the court held.
The court gave the decision after it upheld an application by the six for the enforcement of their fundamental human rights pursuant to Article 33 of the 1992 Constitution.
Incident
According to the court, on December 8, 2020, during the collation of the 2020 Parliamentary election results in the Techiman South Constituency, people started chanting slogans, showing their dissatisfaction with the process, and exhibiting riotous behaviour.
“At a certain point in time the armed security men started firing their weapons ostensibly to control the crowd, but this resulted in a number of people suffering serious gunshot wounds and one person dying as a result of injuries from gunshot,” the court document stated.
Case
It was the case of the six applicants that the said shooting by the security officers amounted to wanton disregard for their fundamental human rights to life and against torture as guaranteed by the 1992 Constitution and international conventions on human rights.
They therefore wanted the court to make a declaration to the effect that the action of the security officers violated their human rights and also sought an order of compensation in the sum of GH¢5 million each.
Indiscriminate firing
Giving reasons for its decision, the court held that the evidence on record, including video evidence showed that the applicants suffered from gunshot wounds as a result of actions by security officers.
The use of the firearms by the security officers which led to the injuries, the court held, was not based on any reasonable justification as stipulated by law, with the court describing it as indiscriminate firing.
According to the court, the defendants – the Attorney-General and the Inspector General of Police (IGP) failed to prove that the use of such force was justifiable under the law.
“Obviously, when firearms are discharged as a crowd control measure, there are bound to be additional risks, such as injuring or killing peaceful participants or bystanders or causing further escalation of the violence with even more casualties. Thus firearms may only be used when it becomes necessary to save other lives,” the court held.
“In view of all these facts, I find that the injury of the applicants by the state security forces was not based upon any reasonable justification for the defence of any person from violence or for the defence of property or for the purposes of suppressing a riot, insurrection or mutiny or in order to prevent the commission of a crime by the applicants. They were injured as a result of the indiscriminate firing of weapons into the crowd by the state security forces,” the court added.
END
