Interactions between civilians and the Ghana Police Service can sometimes become tense, especially during arrests. In many cases, misunderstandings happen because people are unaware of what the law actually says about arrest procedures and the rights of suspects.

Under the laws of Ghana, police officers have the power to arrest persons suspected of committing offences. However, that power is not unlimited. The law also provides important protections for individuals who are arrested or detained.

Arrests in Ghana are mainly governed by:

• the Common Law,
• the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30),
• and the 1992 Constitution.

One of the leading authorities on arrest under common law is Christie v Leachinsky. In that case, the court explained that where a police officer arrests a person without a warrant based on reasonable suspicion, the officer must generally inform the person of the reason for the arrest.

The information given must also be truthful. Failure to inform a person of the grounds for arrest could make the arrest unlawful and may amount to false imprisonment.

However, the law recognises that in certain situations, the reason for the arrest may already be obvious. For example, if a person is caught committing an offence, the police may not need to provide detailed explanations at the scene.

The law also does not require police officers to use technical legal language. The important thing is that the arrested person understands why they are being detained.

The Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30) distinguishes between arrest with warrant and arrest without warrant.

A warrant is issued by a judge or court after a complaint or charge is formally made under oath. Once issued, the warrant remains valid until it is executed or cancelled by the court.

Section 10 of Act 30 outlines situations where police officers may arrest a person without first obtaining a warrant.

These include situations where:

• a person commits an offence in the presence of a police officer,
• a person obstructs a police officer in the performance of duty,
• a person escapes or attempts to escape lawful custody,
• a person is found with items reasonably suspected to be stolen,
• or a person possesses tools intended for unlawful entry without reasonable explanation.

Police officers may also arrest without warrant where they reasonably suspect that:

• a person has committed an offence,
• a person is about to commit an offence,
• a warrant has already been issued for the person,
• or the person is a deserter from the armed forces.

This means the police do not always need a court warrant before making an arrest.

The 1992 Constitution guarantees the personal liberty of every individual. Article 14 states that a person can only be deprived of liberty under specific circumstances recognised by law.

One of those situations is where there is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a criminal offence.

The Constitution further provides that an arrested person must:

• be informed immediately of the reason for the arrest,
• be informed of the right to a lawyer,
• and be brought before a court within 48 hours.

The 48-hour rule is one of the most important constitutional protections available to arrested persons. Following the Martin Kpebu case, weekends are included in the calculation of the 48-hour period. This means a suspect should not remain in custody beyond that period without appearing before a court.

The Constitution also provides that a person who is unlawfully arrested or detained may seek compensation.

Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits torture and any form of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. It also states that the dignity of every person is inviolable.

This means suspects are still entitled to humane treatment regardless of the allegations against them.

Police officers are therefore not legally permitted to assault, torture, or humiliate suspects during arrest or detention.

In addition, Article 19(2) states that every person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction.

In Asante v Republic, a police officer attempted to arrest a person without explaining the reason for the arrest. A confrontation followed, and the individual was convicted for assaulting the officer. However, the conviction was later overturned because the arrest itself was unlawful.

The case suggests that a person may resist an unlawful arrest under certain circumstances.

In reality, however, resisting arrest can easily escalate tensions and may expose individuals to violence or additional allegations. In many situations, it may be safer to comply peacefully and challenge the legality of the arrest later through the courts.

Many people only begin to learn about their legal rights after finding themselves in trouble. Understanding the law before such situations arise can help individuals remain calm, make informed decisions, and recognise when their rights may have been violated.

The law gives police officers powers to maintain order and enforce the law, but it also places limits on those powers in order to protect the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.