On September 21, 2023, during the #OccupyJulorbiHouse protest, several protestors, including leaders, members of the civil society group Democracy Hub, and journalists found themselves in police custody. However, these detained protestors were later released at 9:00 p.m. on the same day.
The protest has ignited mixed reactions, with some labelling it as unlawful. Critics argue that the protest contravenes the Public Order Act and that, given the issuance of an injunction application, it should have been suspended pending a court resolution. In this explanatory piece, DUBAWA delves into the provisions of the Public Order Act and provides a blow-by-blow account of what transpired before the Occupy Julorbi House demonstration.
What is Occupy Julorbi House?
Even though the intention of the demonstrators was to take the demonstration to the Jubilee House, which is the seat of government, the protestors settled on “Occupy Julorbi House” as the theme for the protest organised by a civil society group known as Democracy Hub. ‘Julorbi’ is a phrase in the Ga language to wit “son of a thief’. To convey their discontent through an online platform, they adopted the hashtag #OccupyJulorbiHouse. The primary aim of this protest was to voice grievances related to what the protesters perceived as “extensive economic mismanagement and corruption plaguing the government.”
Additionally, the protest aimed to provide a platform for citizens to express their opposition to the proposed military intervention in Niger. It is worth noting that this demonstration coincided with Kwame Nkrumah Memorial Day, an observance of national significance. The organisers deliberately chose this date, believing it symbolised the resilience and resistance demonstrated during historical struggles against oppression.
Public Order Act (1944) (ACT 491)
The Public Order Act (1944) (ACT 491) seeks to provide for the maintenance of public order and related matters and purposes. This act spells out what process citizens and the police must put in place to ensure law and order when exercising their rights during special events such as protests. Part 1, under the title Holding of Special Events clearly stipulates measures both parties (police and protestors) must be guided by when the decision is made to hold special events.
Section 1, clause 1 states: “Any person who desires to hold any special event within the meaning of this Act in any public place, shall notify the police of his intention not less than 5 days before the date of the special event.”
From Section 1, clause 4 to 7 it also indicates that when a police officer is informed of a special event that they believe could potentially lead to violence, endanger public interests (such as defence, public order, safety, health, or essential services), or violate the rights of others, they have the authority to request the event organisers to either postpone it to another date or relocate it.
If the organisers are asked to make such changes, they must inform the police officer in writing within 48 hours of their willingness to comply. If they refuse to comply or fail to notify the police officer as required, the police officer can seek an order from a judge or tribunal chairman to prohibit the event from taking place on the proposed date or at the proposed location. The judge or chairman has the discretion to issue an order that they deem necessary to protect defence, public order, safety, health, essential services, or the rights and freedoms of individuals.
However, in a landmark case involving the police and the organisers of the Let My Vote Count demonstrators in 2015, the Supreme Court quashed a judgement of the Circuit Court obtained ex-parte (without notice to organisers of Let My Vote Count) by the police against the organisers of the demonstration. The Court partially ruled that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to hear a matter like that. Again, it averred that under the rules of natural justice, the police cannot proceed to court ex-parte to seek to injunct a demonstration notice.
Again in 2021, in the fix-the-country demonstration in 2021, which also found expression in the court of law through an ex-parte filed by the Police, this time at the High Court, the Supreme Court, in its ruling, said the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction when it sought to impose an indefinite ban on the demonstration. It explained that ex-parte applications, if at all granted, cannot exceed a maximum of ten days.
With this legal background under the Public Order Act, and similar cases cited, the question is, what happened before and during the Occupy Julorbi House demonstration?
Police Injunction and Democracy Hub’s Rebuttal
On August 21, 2023, Democracy Hub notified the Ghana Police Service of their intention to protest and picket in front of the seat of government, Jubilee House. On September 4, 2023, Democracy Hub submitted a protest plan to the Ghana Police Service. This can be seen on the X page of the Ghana Police Service. This came in response to a request from the police service during a September 1, 2023 meeting urging them to select an alternate route and endpoint for their demonstration. Despite the police’s explanation that picketing at the Jubilee House had been designated as a security zone, the protest organisers remained resolute in their decision to stage their protest there. They argued that labelling the Jubilee House as a security zone was unwarranted, pointing out that several protests had previously occurred at that location.
In light of this situation and in compliance with the provisions of the Public Order Act (1944) (ACT 491), the police took action on September 20, 2023, by filing an injunction application at the High Court. It is essential to state that this application was not ex-parte; it sought to prevent the planned demonstration in the vicinity of Jubilee House, scheduled to occur from Thursday, September 21st to Saturday, September 23rd, 2023. The High Court is set to issue a ruling on this matter on September 26, 2023.
However, Democracy Hub, through its X platform, disputed the police’s assertion that they had been served with the processes of the court documents on the court processes of filing of injunctions, despite the police’s insistence to the contrary.
Bone of Contention
The two parties disagreed over whether the conveners of the demonstration were served with the court application.
DUBAWA followed a conversation on Joy FM’s news analysis programme Newsfile, where the issue about the service was raised. It is reported that a leading member and lawyer of the demonstrators, Oliver Baker Vormawor, explained that organisers of the demonstration wrote to the police on September 4 about the impending demonstration. In that letter, they wrote Atuguba and Associates as the law firm for the demonstrators. Also, they added the name, contact number and e-mail address of Oliver Baker Vomawor and asked the police to contact them if they wanted clarity. The police then contacted Atuguba and Associates to serve the writ on them. However, his law firm decided it was not accepting the writ. According to him, the bailiff just dropped the writ in his law firm’s offices and left. Even though Baker Vormawor insisted that was not a service, the host of Newsfile Samson, Lardi Anyenini, stated that the action is a standard practice in service for bailiffs.
Can service of an application alone constitute a court order stopping a group from embarking on a scheduled demonstration from Thursday, September 21, to Saturday, September 23, 2023? Alternatively, if the police have not yet obtained the court order and served it to the protestors before the scheduled protest date, are they still obligated to proceed with the protest?
Private Legal Practitioner Richard Dela Sky also believes there are two differing perspectives on this issue. During his explanation on the Citi Breakfast Show on Citi FM, which aired on September 23, 2022, he pointed out that the first school of thought contends that, merely by the filing of an injunction application by the police, the protestors should have refrained from demonstrating out of respect for the court.
On the other hand, the second perspective maintains that since there has been no definitive ruling on the matter in court thus far, the protestors believe they are within their rights to proceed with their protest. This explanation can be found on the media house’s Facebook page between 1:46:52 and 1:49:00.
On his part, legal practitioner Samson Lardi Anyenini stated on Newsfile that a party risks being slapped with contempt of court if, after receiving an injunction application, goes ahead to carry out the action in which he or she is being stopped from undertaking. He explained such an action would mean the person has decided on the matter by him or herself, which takes away the authority of the court. This can be found in the full show published on Joy News’YouTube channel (40:33-40:52)
Inusah Fuseni, another lawyer also argued on the show indicated that a party can decide to act on an application for injunction and bear the consequences of same. (37:00- 38:01)
While the lawyers juggle over which of the actions were legal or illegal, the demonstrators defied all odds and embarked on the three-day demonstration. On the first day, there was some amount of chaos which led to the arrest of at least 49 people including journalists.
The second and third day were somewhat without incident, but the demonstrators underlined their grievances to the government in power
Conclusion
Classifying the protest as either illegal or legal is inconclusive. The police argue that, as a gesture of respect for the court, Democracy Hub should have suspended their protest at the Jubilee House upon the filing of an injunction at the High Court. Conversely, Democracy Hub contends that, in the absence of a formal injunction restraining their protest, they have not violated any legal requirements. This perspective informed their decision to proceed with the protest, resulting in reported arrests.
