Court Condemns ‘Unprofessional’ Police Conduct in #OccupyJulorbiHouse Arrests, Awards GH¢150k Compensation to Three Journalists – Full Judgment

A High Court in Accra has ruled that the Ghana Police Service unlawfully violated the fundamental human rights of three citizens—including two broadcast journalists—during the #OccupyJulorbiHouse demonstration in September 2023, ordering the Inspector General of Police to pay GH₵150,000 in damages and issue a formal apology.

Justice Nana Brew, sitting at the Human Rights Division of the High Court, described the conduct of police officers on the day as “unprofessional” and declared that the arrest and detention of the applicants were unconstitutional.

The Court held that the rights to personal liberty, human dignity, freedom of assembly, and media independence guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 21, and 162 of the 1992 Constitution had been breached.

Who the applicants are

The three applicants were Bridget Otoo, Vanessa Edotom Boateng, and George Gyening Anyang.

At the time of the incident on 21 September 2023, Bridget Otoo and Vanessa Edotom Boateng were broadcast journalists, while Mr Anyang was a chartered accountant and democracy activist.

They had attended the #OccupyJulorbiHouse protest, organised by the civil society group Democracy Hub, which called for improvements in harsh economic conditions.

What the Court heard

The applicants told the Court that they suffered assault, unlawful detention, humiliation, and the seizure of mobile phones at the premises of the Greater Accra Regional Police Headquarters on the day of the protest.

According to the evidence before the Court, the 2nd and 3rd applicants were unlawfully detained at the Regional Police Headquarters, where the 3rd applicant was allegedly subjected to slaps, punches, and blows with a baton and the metallic part of a belt.

The 2nd applicant, who filmed part of the incident, was set upon by more than six officers, had her phone seized, and was threatened with a weekend in custody if she did not delete the video recordings.

The Court also heard that two lawyers who came to the aid of the applicants were mistreated, with one pushed aside and another beaten and detained.

The 1st applicant, Bridget Otoo, was also assaulted, and her blouse was torn.

The Police defence

The Police argued that the demonstration was unlawful because organisers had refused to change the venue from the front of Jubilee House, a security zone, and had defied a court action initiated to prohibit the protest.

The Respondents also claimed that the applicants were not on the official list of 49 arrested persons and that any force used was “minimal reasonable force” to disperse an unlawful assembly.

They further argued that the applicants had failed to provide medical reports to support claims of injury and had not reported the matter to independent bodies such as CHRAJ or the Police Professional Standards Bureau.

How the Court ruled

Justice Nana Brew rejected the Police’s defence, holding that the demonstration was not unlawful and that the Police had no lawful justification for their conduct.

The Court noted that the organisers had complied with the Public Order Act, 1994 (Act 491), by providing the required notification, and that the Police’s attempt to prohibit the demonstration was flawed because the originating process was never personally served on the organisers as required by law.

The Court further observed that the Police’s own records were inconsistent: a public statement signed by the Head of Public Affairs, Superintendent Juliana Obeng, said 49 suspects were arrested, but the Police later told the Court that only 46 were detained.

The Court also noted that the Respondents’ sole witness admitted he was not present at the events and relied on second-hand information.

On the absence of medical evidence, the Court did not treat it as fatal to the applicants’ case, given the availability of video evidence, photographic exhibits, and sworn testimonies from witnesses including former MP Inusah Fuseini and lawyer Richmond Rockson.

“The evidence is overwhelming: the applicants were lawfully exercising their rights, yet the police, without lawful authority, subjected them to violence and humiliation,” the Court held.

The orders

The Court made the following orders:

1. A declaration that the arrest and detention of the applicants by the Police was unlawful and a violation of their fundamental human rights under the Constitution.
2. An order of compensation in favour of the applicants for unlawful deprivation of liberty and interference with journalistic duties.
3. An order directing the Respondents to issue a written apology to the applicants for the violation of their rights.

On the quantum of compensation, Justice Nana Brew awarded GHC100,000 as compensatory damages and GHC50,000 as general damages, totalling GHC150,000.

Explaining why the award was not higher, the Court stated: “If heavy amount is awarded, it will cripple the Institution… if we do not take care, the Ghana Police Service will grind to a halt, and they can’t protect us.”

The Court also noted that a different Inspector General of Police was in office at the time of the incident.

“Never again”

Justice Nana Brew did not mince words in his assessment of the Police’s conduct.

“What is seen is that the attitude of the Police Force on that day was unprofessional and they violated the Fundamental Human Rights of journalists and citizens of Ghana getting ready for a demonstration. And it must be corrected, never again,” the judgment stated.

The Court further reminded all state actors that the Constitution is the supreme law of Ghana and that “any act inconsistent with its provisions is void”.

Background context

The #OccupyJulorbiHouse demonstration took place from 21 to 23 September 2023.

It was one of the most widely discussed protest movements in Ghana in recent years, drawing attention to economic hardships and governance concerns.

The Police had sought a court order to prohibit the protest, but the application was dismissed due to lack of proper service on the organisers.

Despite the heavy-handed response on the first day, the protest continued for two more days, with the Police eventually providing peaceful security cordons around Jubilee House.