A monster called Public Order Act

Read Comments Comments (5)

• Osei Kofi 10 years ago

  Sometimes the impression is created that freedom of speech and the right to demonstrate is unfettered.That impression is wrong
  
  The truth of the matter is that freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited when i ...
  read full comment

  Sometimes the impression is created that freedom of speech and the right to demonstrate is unfettered.That impression is wrong
  
  The truth of the matter is that freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited when it conflicts with other rights.
  
  It is when it conflicts with other rights that the constitution sets out how the police can reconcile this conflict as you have quoted in your piece.The police are also required under the constitution and guidelines under international law to comply with the law.
  
  The law or regulation must meet standards of clarity and precision so that people can foresee the consequences of their actions. Vaguely worded edicts, whose scope is unclear, will not meet this standard and are therefore not legitimate.
  
  However if after all these some hooligans decide to take the law into their own hands then under public order and national security,the police are under a duty to act with reasonable force commensurate to the force they are facing and sometimes people get hurt.
  
  The onus is on the public to respect the law.They must also recognize the limits of their rights.

  reply
• Luther King 10 years ago

  Couldn't agree with you more Osei Kofi. Freedoms are not absolute. Once u have rights, u must also have responsibilities.
  
  I find Kofi Akordo's arguments rather strange. The organisers didn't say they were matching to the ...
  read full comment

  Couldn't agree with you more Osei Kofi. Freedoms are not absolute. Once u have rights, u must also have responsibilities.
  
  I find Kofi Akordo's arguments rather strange. The organisers didn't say they were matching to the ec to present a petition. They wanted to picket there which the police felt was going to disturb the peace of the country. The police didn't deny the protesters their right to demo.

  reply
• Jacke Jones, VA 10 years ago

  The president overspent in last years budget, thus breaking the law. Was the police able to arrest and whip him? NDC knows that they are out in 2017 and are using the police and other security forces to intimidate the citizen ...
  read full comment

  The president overspent in last years budget, thus breaking the law. Was the police able to arrest and whip him? NDC knows that they are out in 2017 and are using the police and other security forces to intimidate the citizens.But no matter what, NDC will lose and Mahama and his corrupt NDC will pay for their atrocities

  reply
• Read 10 years ago

  Police imposing conditions
  Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 give the police the power to
  impose conditions on marches and any demonstration that comes within the
  definition of a “public assembly”. A “p ...
  read full comment

  Police imposing conditions
  Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 give the police the power to
  impose conditions on marches and any demonstration that comes within the
  definition of a “public assembly”. A “public assembly” is an assembly of two or
  4
  more people in a public place that is wholly or partly open to the air. This can
  extend to privately owned land that the public generally have access to.
  The power to impose conditions in advance can only be exercised by the Chief
  Constable (or the Metropolitan Police Commissioner or the Commissioner of the
  City of London Police). This power can be delegated to an Assistant Chief
  Constable (or Assistant Commissioner). Conditions imposed in advance have to
  be put in writing. Once a march has started to assemble or a demonstration is
  under way conditions can be imposed by the most senior police officer present.
  These can be given orally.
  The Chief Constable/senior officer present can only impose conditions if he/she
  considers that the march/ demonstration may result in serious public disorder,
  serious damage to property or serious disruption to others or that the purpose of the
  organisers is to intimidate others into doing or not doing something. The conditions
  that may be imposed are those that the officer considers necessary to prevent these
  eventualities. In relation to a march these can include conditions as to its route or a
  prohibition on entering certain areas. In relation to a demonstration, only conditions
  as to the demonstration’s location, duration and the maximum number of people
  that can take part can be imposed.
  An organiser of a march or demonstration who fails to comply with conditions that
  he/she knows about commits an offence for which he/she can be fined up to £2,500
  or sentenced to up to 3 months’ imprisonment. Someone taking part in the
  march/demonstration who knowingly breaches a condition commits an offence for
  which he/she could be fined up to £1,000.

  reply
• Prof Lungu 10 years ago

  Read,
  If what is described in this essay, even after reading the lines you took pains to provide for our situational awareness regarding from whence Ghana borrowed that law, if that is a "Monster", then we surely do not know ...
  read full comment

  Read,
  If what is described in this essay, even after reading the lines you took pains to provide for our situational awareness regarding from whence Ghana borrowed that law, if that is a "Monster", then we surely do not know what simulacrum (s?mj??le?kr?m), is!

  reply