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