Court orders BNI to allow counsel during interrogation

Accra, Aug. 18, GNA - A Human Rights Court (Fast Track High Court Division) on Tuesday ruled that it is unconstitutional for the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) to deny persons their counsel during interrogation, detention or meeting.

This was after it had granted perpetual injunction filed by Mr Sammy Crabbe, Greater Accra Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), against the BNI for abuse of his rights.

Mr Crabbe was invited by the BNI through telephone and was interrogated on a wide range of issues concerning the beleaguered Ghana International Airlines without his counsel.

At the BNI, Mr Crabbe was denied his counsel during the interrogation. In the court's ruling, it noted that BNI's denial of Mr Crabbe access to counsel was in breach of Article 14 of the 1992 Constitution and in contravention of international and regional conventions on Human Rights. The court presided over Mr Justice U.P. Dery said under Article 14 of the 1992 Constitution, operatives of the BNI or any security agencies were to ensure that they explained to suspects reasons for their arrest, the right to choose a counsel of their choice and to explain to suspects issues in languages they understood.

In the case of Mr Crabbe, the court noted that the seizure of his mobile phones, his transfer from one room to another and the absence of his counsel amounted to an arrest.

Mr Crabbe said he was on June 11 invited by the BNI by an unidentified caller but because of his respect for authority he proceeded to the offices of the BNI.

On reaching the BNI, his mobile phones were collected from him and he was taken to a room for a "friendly conversation," in the absence of his lawyer.

On June 17, he was again invited and interrogated by the operatives of the BNI without his lawyer.

This, Mr Crabbe contended, was unconstitutional and in breach of his human rights and, therefore, proceeded to court on June 23. In response, the A-G did not file its defence and an affidavit in opposition to the suit.

The A-G, however, explained that it was incompetent for an application to include the BNI Director in an ex-parte adding that this amounted to a violation of the Constitution.