As Ghana draws close to another electioneering year, the country is witnessing a surge in public demonstrations, often fuelled by concerns about governance, social justice, and economic issues. These protests are emblematic of a vibrant and active citizenry participating in democratic processes.
The Ghana Police Service’s (GPS) use of court injunctions to temporarily halt some of these demonstrations have sparked a debate that hinges on the delicate balance between safeguarding public safety and preserving fundamental civil liberties.
The “FixTheCountry” protests serve as a case in point. These demonstrations, organized just days after the appointment of a new Inspector General of Police, Dr. George Akufo Dampare, marked a significant juncture in Ghana’s democratic landscape. They illustrated the populace’s eagerness to exercise their rights to protest and demand accountability from their leaders.
However, the GPS’s intervention in these protests through court injunctions has raised critical questions. Are these injunctions merely tools to maintain public order and mitigate potential violence, or do they risk stifling the fundamental democratic right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression?
The GPS’s argument centres on public safety. They contend that court injunctions are necessary to prevent clashes, property damage, and economic disruption that may occur during large-scale protests. In the case of the “Arise Ghana” protest, the police sought to alter the demonstration’s route through a court order to avoid potential conflicts.
Similarly, the “OccupyBOG” protest faced an attempted injunction. The GPS argued that the Bank of Ghana was a security zone, making it imprudent for the protest to occur in its vicinity. In this case, the injunction was not successful, and the protest will proceed tomorrow [October 3, 2023] as planned.
These actions, from the GPS’s perspective, reflect a commitment to upholding public safety while respecting democratic rights. They argue that such interventions are not intended to suppress dissent but to strike a balance between the right to protest and the broader principles of social cohesion and public order.
On the other side of the debate, critics argue that the GPS’s use of injunctions poses a threat to the very democratic principles these protests aim to uphold. They contend that these actions might deter citizens from exercising their rights to peaceful assembly and free expression, fearing legal repercussions.
The “Occupy Jubilee House” protest, organized by Democracy Hub, saw last-minute injunction attempts. The fact that the organisers claimed they were not properly served with the court order added fuel to these concerns.
Moreover, some question the timing of these injunctions and whether they are politically motivated. In the context of turf fighting scepticism about potential bias arises.
In this complex interplay between safeguarding public safety and preserving democratic rights, Ghana is navigating uncharted waters. Striking the right balance is a challenging task, one that requires utmost diligence.
Demonstrations, like the “FixTheCountry” protests, signify an engaged citizenry passionate about shaping their nation’s destiny. Injunctions, when used judiciously and transparently, can indeed protect public safety. However, the overuse or misuse of this legal tool can risk undermining the very democratic principles Ghana cherishes.
As the GPS continues to grapple with this delicate balance, the nation’s democracy remains a dynamic force, shaped by the voices of its citizens, and the outcome of this ongoing debate will leave an indelible mark on Ghana’s democratic legacy. Ultimately, Ghana, like any thriving democracy, must find a harmonious symphony between freedom and safety, where the rights of its citizens are protected without compromising the public good.
