Policy Framework and Manual for the Ghana Public Services the kind of activities likely to constitute misconduct for civil servants to include amongst others: “Receiving or soliciting any contribution, fee, gift of value or emolument of any kind from any person for services rendered in the discharged of the public servant’s official duties.” 72. The Court agrees with the Respondent that the Applicants should have known that in accepting bribes to influence their judgment, they were engaging in acts against the ethics of their call and ran the risk of encountering an undercover investigation whose task is to expose them. The Court therefore finds that foreseeability test has been met and all other requirements for the interference to be ‘legal’ has been fulfilled, the court therefore holds that the interference is in accordance with the law. 3) Pursuit of the legitimate purposes 73. Both Art 8(2) of the ECHR which is pari material with Art 12 of the Constitution of Ghana identify the legitimate purposes for which an interference can be justified namely public safety, economic well-being of the country, protection of health and morality and the prevention of disorder or crime. From the facts already established the interference was to capture the commission of a crime - receiving bribes from relative of an accused person. This clearly falls within the ambit of the pursuit of a legitimate aim of exposing the commission of a crime. For this reasons the Court holds that the interference is in accordance with the law. 4) Necessary in a democratic Society 74. Even when the interference is in accordance with the law it must in addition be necessary in a democratic society for any of the following purposes: public safety, economic well-being of the country, protection of health and morality and the prevention of disorder or crime. The nature of the democratic necessary is such that mere expediency is not sufficient. The interference must be justified by a “pressing social need” relating to one or more of the legitimate aims above. In CNDD v. COTE D’ IVOIRE (2009), CCJELR Para 44, pg. 325 the Court relied on the 26

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3