tsikata v ghana communication 322 of 2006 2014 achpr 2 14 october 2014

tsikata v ghana communication 322 of 2006 2014 achpr 2 14 october 2014

The Commission found no violation of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c), or 7(2) as the charges were based on acts occurring after the relevant law came into force, the presumption of innocence was maintained, and the right to defence was not denied. However, the Commission found a breach of Article 26 due to tacit executive interference in the reconstitution of the Supreme Court bench for the review of the Fast Track Court's constitutionality, undermining judicial independence.

Citation
tsikata v ghana communication 322 of 2006 2014 achpr 2 14 october 2014
Parties
Complainant: Tsatsu Tsikata; Respondent State: Republic of Ghana
Court
ACHPR
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
14 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Communication Before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights / Decision on Merits After Admissibility Review
Outcome
Partial finding for complainant
Legal Topics
Right to Fair Trial, Judicial Independence, Non Retroactivity of Criminal Law, Presumption of Innocence, Right to Defence
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Right to Fair Trial Judicial Independence Non Retroactivity of Criminal Law Presumption of Innocence Right to Defence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsatsu Tsikata

Complainant

Republic of Ghana

Respondent State

Procedural Posture

Communication Before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights / Decision on Merits After Admissibility Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution of the complainant violated the right to be presumed innocent under Article 7(1)(b) of the African Charter
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution violated the prohibition of retrospective application of criminal law under Article 7(2) of the African Charter
  3. 3 Whether the right to defence under Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter was violated

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission found no violation of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c), or 7(2) as the charges were based on acts occurring after the relevant law came into force, the presumption of innocence was maintained, and the right to defence was not denied. However, the Commission found a breach of Article 26 due to tacit executive interference in the reconstitution of the Supreme Court bench for the review of the Fast Track Court's constitutionality, undermining judicial independence.

Court Disposition

Partial finding for complainant

Orders

  • No violation of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c), and 7(2) of the African Charter
  • Violation of Article 26 of the African Charter for failure to guarantee judicial independence