322/06 Tsatsu Tsikata / Ghana
Summary of Facts
1. The Secretariat of the African Commission received the communication from the Complainant, Redmond
Tsatsu Tsikata, in accordance with Article 55 of the African Charter.
2. The author of the present communication, who is himself the Complainant, submitted the communication
against the Republic of Ghana ('Ghana')1 , alleging that the latter is in the process of trying him for "wilfully
causing financial loss to the State" contrary to Section 179A (3) of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29); an act,
which did not constitute an offence at the time of the commission. He alleges that this is contrary to Article
19(5)
× A person shall not be charged with or held to be guilty of a criminal offence which is founded on an act or
omission that did not at the time it took place constitute an offence.
(http://www.parliament.gh/chapter_five_-_fundamental_human_right_and_freedoms.html Accessed
18.10.2010)
of the Constitution of Ghana, which prohibits retroactive criminalisation, and Article 7(2) of the African
Charter. He had challenged this in the High Court in Ghana, and his contention was upheld.
3. He further alleges that in the course of his trial, he has been denied the right to a fair trial, in violation of
Article 7(1) of the African Charter. He alleged that he had been summoned 'in the name of the President' to
appear before a 'Fast-Track Court'; and he had challenged the constitutionality of both at the Supreme
Court, which claims were upheld on 28th February 2002. However, after the Executive's alleged
interference with the decision, and the 'questionable' appointment of a new Justice of the Supreme Court,
the decision was 'reversed' by an 11-member panel of the Supreme Court, including the newly-appointed
Justice, on 26th June 2002. The case was further 'remitted' to the 'Fast-Track Court', which had now been
declared constitutional.
4. The author also notes that the Chief Justice had prior to the Supreme Court's latter decision, publicly and
explicitly stated his determination to have the earlier decision of the case reversed.
5. The author also contends that both the manner of appointment of the new Justice of the Supreme Court
and the conduct of the Executive towards the Judiciary in relation to his case constituted a violation of
Article 26 of the African Charter, which obliges states to guarantee the independence of the judiciary.
6. The author stated that on 9th October 2002, he was again charged before the High Court of Accra on
four counts, including the retroactive charge of 'wilfully causing financial loss to the State' (para. 2 above);
and intentionally misapplying public property contrary to section 1(2) of the Public Property Decree 1977,
(SMCD 140). He alleges that the facts on which the charges were based are the same as those on which
he had been charged before three (3) previous courts: a) Circuit Tribunal; b) Fast Track Court; and c) the
normal High Court.
7. The author further alleges a violation of his right to fair trial under Article 7(1) of the African Charter when
the trial judge of the High Court of Accra overruled his Counsel's submission of 'no-case-to-answer', without
giving reasons; thereby violating his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court
or tribunal, as well as right to have the violations of his fundamental rights redressed.
8. He further alleges that he had appealed to the Court of Appeal, and that in upholding the decision of the
lower court, the Court of Appeal had relied on a repealed law, which was neither cited in the charge sheet,
nor at any point in the trial proceedings at the High Court, except in response to the submission of
'no-case-to-answer'. He alleges that the Court of Appeal thereby denied him of his right to defence
guaranteed under Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter as he could not have known before the trial, that a
repealed law, which he had no (prior) notice of in the charge sheet or at any point in the trial, would be the
basis of his charge. He also alleges a further breach of his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
by a competent court or tribunal guaranteed by Article 7(1)(b) of the African Charter.
9. He submits that there is a further violation of Article 7(2) of the African Charter, and a failure to enforce
Articles 19(5)
× A person shall not be charged with or held to be guilty of a criminal offence which is founded on an act or
omission that did not at the time it took place constitute an offence.
(http://www.parliament.gh/chapter_five_-_fundamental_human_right_and_freedoms.html Accessed
18.10.2010)
1