The Midnight Phone Search and the Monday Court
At 21:40 on Friday 14 March, Kofi Mensah, a 27-year-old driver, is stopped at a police checkpoint outside Kumasi. Officers say he matches a description of a robbery suspect. They arrest him, seize his unlocked phone and spend about twenty minutes scrolling through WhatsApp chats and photographs without a warrant or his consent. Kofi asks to call his lawyer; the officer says he can do so ‘after investigation.’ He is held at the station, interrogated from 08:00 to 14:00 on Saturday, and signs a cautioned statement admitting he ‘was there.’ No magistrate sees him until Monday at 10:30, roughly sixty-one hours after arrest. He is then charged with robbery and remanded. The prosecution intends to rely on the phone messages and the statement at trial.
1. Identify the constitutional and statutory breaches disclosed by these facts and explain which remedies are realistically available to Kofi before trial.
Read the worked answer
The facts disclose at least four breaches. Article 14(2) requires that Kofi be informed promptly, in a language he understands, of the grounds of arrest; the checkpoint account is thin on this. Article 14(3) gives him the right to consult a lawyer and a doctor; telling him he may call ‘after investigation’ is a denial, not a deferral. Article 14(4) requires production before a court within 48 hours; 61 hours is a plain breach. Article 18(2) protects against arbitrary search and seizure; scrolling through an unlocked phone is a search of digital content, not a mere seizure of an object. Article 19(2)(c) also guarantees adequate facilities for preparation.
Remedies: bail is the immediate remedy before the criminal court; a High Court application under Article 33 can seek declarations and orders; exclusion of the phone evidence and statement may be sought at trial. Habeas corpus is unlikely to succeed once a court has remanded him, and the 48-hour breach does not automatically void the charge. A complaint to the Police Professional Standards Bureau is separate from trial remedies.
2. Advise on the admissibility of (a) the WhatsApp messages and photographs and (b) the cautioned statement. What procedure should defence counsel invoke?
Read the worked answer
(a) Phone messages. A search incident to arrest is limited to the person and immediate surroundings for weapons, means of escape or evidence; it does not automatically authorise a forensic trawl through WhatsApp and photographs. Without a warrant, consent or a recognised exception, the search is unconstitutional. Ghana does not apply an absolute exclusionary rule, but the trial judge has a discretion to exclude evidence where its admission would make the trial unfair; defence counsel should object at the point of tendering and, if the facts are disputed, ask for a voir dire on the circumstances of seizure.
(b) Cautioned statement. Admissibility depends on voluntariness, not truth. The denial of counsel, the length of interrogation and the absence of a magistrate are relevant to voluntariness. The statement is not automatically inadmissible merely because it is retracted; the prosecution must prove it was voluntary beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel should challenge it by a trial within a trial and also rely on the Article 14(3) breach as part of the fairness assessment. Keep the phone and statement objections separate: different legal bases.
3. Draft the core orders you would seek in a High Court application under Article 33, and explain the limits of that application now that Kofi has been charged.
Read the worked answer
Core orders: (i) a declaration that the detention beyond 48 hours and the denial of access to counsel violated Articles 14(3) and 14(4); (ii) a declaration that the warrantless search of the phone violated Article 18(2); (iii) an order that the phone and its contents be preserved and not used until the trial court rules on admissibility; (iv) an order admitting Kofi to bail on suitable conditions, or, alternatively, an order that the criminal court hear bail expeditiously; (v) any consequential directions for the trial.
Limits: Article 33 is not a substitute for the trial court’s evidence rulings; the High Court will usually decline to decide contested facts about how the statement was obtained, leaving that to a voir dire. Once remand is ordered, habeas corpus is weak. The application should be supported by affidavit with times, officers and witnesses, and should not ask the High Court to acquit.