In Ghana, citizens may seek justice through petitions to the police to initiate investigations. This mechanism, established by law, allows individuals to report crimes and request police action. While it offers important benefits, the system also faces challenges that impact its effectiveness and fairness. It is important for an investigator who commences an investigation into a petition to be firmly aware that the essence of such an inquiry is to conduct an exercise in accordance with the laws empowering him or her to undertake that duty and that such an exercise is intended to meet all necessary requirements for a successful prosecution if the need arises. The venerable J.B. Akamba JSC, in the case of Ekow Russel vs. The Republic, [1] stated that “the strength of our criminal justice system over the years has not thrived on mere wishes and speculations but on the production of evidence that meets the standard of proof of crime in a court of justice. Without the necessary evidence, presented in accordance with the rules of law, all the prior efforts made in arresting a suspect will be brought to nought ”.
Is there a law governing petitions to commence police investigations?
There are no specific statutory provisions for the use of petitions generally as a means to commence police investigations. However, there are provisions that show that a complaint against a member of the Police Service by a member of the public may be initiated by a petition duly signed by the petitioner, and the Inspector-General of Police or any senior police officer, upon receipt of such complaint, is obliged to cause full and impartial investigation into the complaint and submit a report to the complainant upon conclusion. See Sections 23(1) and 23(4) of the Police Service Act,[2]. It is worthy of note that, per Section 23(5), it is an offence for a person to knowingly make a false or malicious complaint.
Also, under section 61 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act,[3] a person who has reasonable cause to believe that an offence has been committed may, either orally or in writing signed by the complainant, submit a complaint to a District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the accused resides to enquire into the alleged offence. While this section focuses on the court,
in practice, it lays the groundwork for police investigations based on complaints information before or concurrent with court proceedings and serves as a guide to the investigative body.
The Good: Empowering Citizens and Enhancing Accountability
One of the primary advantages of commencing police action through petitions is that it promotes active participation of citizens in criminal justice system administration. It provides a direct channel for victims and witnesses to report crimes without needing to navigate complex legal procedures. This accessibility helps uncover crimes that might otherwise go unreported, particularly in cases where victims fear retaliation or lack resources to pursue legal action independently. It ensures proactive policing, as the public is able to tip the police off early to investigate matters before they escalate.
Moreover, the petition system promotes police accountability. By obligating the police to respond to petitions, the law ensures that complaints are not ignored, fostering public trust in law enforcement agencies. This mechanism also serves as a check against police inaction or corruption, as failure to act on legitimate petitions can be challenged through legal and administrative avenues. A police officer is mandated to handle petitions received with the highest standard of professionalism and dedication, as failure to do so will constitute misconduct under Section 17(k)[4], which states, “It shall be a misconduct for a police officer to do any act without reasonable excuse which amounts to a failure to perform in a proper manner any duty imposed on him as such, or which contravenes any enactment relating to the Police Service, or which otherwise is prejudicial to the efficient conduct of the Police Service or tends to bring the Police Service into disrepute.”
The Bad: Delays, Mismanagement, and Resource Constraints
One of the most persistent distortions of the petition system is its misuse to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. Matters arising from contracts, debt recovery, landlord-tenant disagreements, family property disputes, and failed business ventures are frequently dressed in the language of crime, such as fraud, stealing, or threat of harm, when the underlying issue is civil.
This practice burdens the police with matters that ought to be resolved in civil courts or through alternative dispute resolution. It also exposes suspects to unnecessary arrest, detention, and reputational harm, contrary to the constitutional presumption of innocence.
Where investigators fail to properly distinguish between criminal intent and civil liability, the Police risk becoming instruments of coercion rather than impartial enforcers of the law. The mandate of the police is one that requires the proper use of police powers to ensure that innocent person liberties and rights are not infringed upon as succinctly said by Stephen J in R. v. Brixton Prison Governor;[5] and adopted by Taylor J. in the case of Republic v. Inspector-General of Police;[6] “ I have no doubt that one of the court’s most important duties is to see so far as possible that the great officers of state and those who act under their orders, no less than public bodies and private individuals, act lawfully in the exercise of their powers; and the greater the power which is exercised, and the higher the authority exercising it, the more important is the discharge by the court of this duty and the more difficult”.
Additionally, not all petitions are based on credible information. The police sometimes receive frivolous or malicious petitions aimed at harassing individuals or settling personal scores. Managing these cases requires careful scrutiny, which can strain already limited investigative capacities and divert attention from genuine cases. Though the validity of proceedings instituted through a petition under Section 61[7] shall not be affected by a defect in the complaint, it is important that the petition is well vetted to ensure that the provision of Article 19 (c) of the Constitution of Ghana, 1992, which mandates presumption of innocence until one is proved or pleads guilty, is upheld at all times.
The Ugly: Abuse of the Petition System and Implications for Justice
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the petition process is its potential for abuse. In some instances, petitions have been weaponised for political vendettas, social manipulation, or intimidation. This misuse can undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system, leading to wrongful arrests, harassment, and the erosion of fundamental rights.
Furthermore, inadequate oversight and a lack of transparency in handling petitions can foster corruption, where police officers may demand bribes to act or dismiss petitions without proper investigation. Such practices not only harm victims but also damage the reputation of law enforcement institutions. Petitions are always an avenue for armchair and poorly conducted investigations. There is the tendency for investigators to rely on the content of the petition without conducting preliminary investigations into the matters arising out of the petition. Under Ghanaian criminal procedure, the police are empowered to act upon information received from any source, whether oral or written, provided it discloses a prima facie criminal offence. The petition therefore serves as a trigger for investigation, not a substitute for proof.
Conclusion
Initiating police criminal proceedings through petitions in Ghana is a vital legal tool that enhances access to justice and promotes accountability. However, to maximise its benefits, systemic improvements are necessary. Strengthening police capacity, ensuring rigorous vetting of petitions, and instituting robust oversight mechanisms can mitigate delays and abuses. Public education on the responsible use of petitions will also help preserve the system’s integrity. It is important that persons invited by the police upon receipt of a petition are treated as persons of interest rather than suspects, to ensure that innocent people are not harassed merely because a petition had been instituted against them. More importantly, it is better to conduct a preliminary investigation into petitions received to establish a prima facie case against the named persons before inviting them or effecting an arrest where necessary.
In a constitutional democracy like Ghana, the initiation of criminal proceedings through petitions is both a necessity and a responsibility. When properly managed, it empowers citizens and strengthens law enforcement. When abused, it erodes trust, criminalises civil life, and turns the machinery of justice into a tool of oppression. The true test of the petition system is not how many complaints are received, but how faithfully the law is applied after the ink has dried. Justice, after all, is not served by petitions alone, but by principled investigation and fearless adherence to the rule of law. By addressing these challenges, Ghana can ensure that the petition process remains a powerful instrument for justice, balancing the good it offers against the bad and the ugly realities it sometimes faces.
The writer is Owura Kwabena Appenteng Okyere Darko of Dichemso-Kumasi.
[1] [2016] DLSC2800
[2] 1970 (ACT 350)
[3] 1960 (Act 30)
[4] Act 350
[5] Ex parte Soblen [1963] 2 Q.B.243 at p.273
[6] Ex parte Aniagyei II [1976] 1 GLR 394-402,
[7] Act 30
