Police discretionary Power: Fairness in Question?

The issue of fairness in the exercise of discretionary powers by the police has once again come under scrutiny. According to Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution, discretionary powers given to individuals and authorities are not to be exercised arbitrarily.

These powers must be exercised fairly and candidly. Specifically, Article 296(b) mandates that such powers should not be biased by resentment, prejudice, or personal dislike, and must adhere to due process of law.

This constitutional mandate is being questioned in light of recent events involving two prominent figures. In July 2020, Hawa Koomson, a minister in the current administration, fired a gunshot in public. She was subsequently invited by the police and attended the meeting with her lawyers. Koomson admitted to firing the weapon, but the case has not been publicly addressed since, and she continues to walk free.

In a stark contrast, Naa Koryoo, an MP hopeful for the NDC in the same electoral constituency, was recently arrested and searched. A registered weapon was found in her possession. Unlike Koomson, Koryoo’s weapon was seized, and she was detained.

NDC supporters storm cantonment police station demands release of Naa Koryoo, PC

This disparity in treatment raises questions about the impartiality of the police’s discretionary power. Could Naa Koryoo not have been invited and treated similarly to Koomson? The police had the option to grant her inquiry bail but chose to detain her instead.

These contrasting cases highlight potential biases in the exercise of discretionary power, prompting concerns about the adherence to fairness and due process as enshrined in the Constitution.