The recent arrest of Ashanti Regional NPP Chairman Bernard Antwi Boasiako—popularly known as Chairman Wontumi—is not illegal in and of itself. If there is a legitimate case, the law must take its course. However, in matters of public trust and political sensitivity, the optics are as important as the action. In this case, the style of arrest, the magnitude of the bail conditions, and the surrounding political climate raise serious questions about whether justice is being done—or being used.
Ghana is a constitutional democracy. Our peace and progress are held together by the integrity of the rule of law. If that law is seen to be applied selectively or used as a weapon, the consequences go beyond any single arrest—they ripple into political stability, national security, and public confidence in state institutions.
Recent reports underscore a troubling decline in public trust. The 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) by Transparency International reveals that Ghana scored 42 out of 100, marking the first drop in five years and placing the country 80th globally. This decline signals growing concerns about the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures and the perceived integrity of public institutions.
Moreover, public confidence in key institutions such as the judiciary and security services has eroded. Reports indicate that the judiciary faces challenges including perceptions of bias and inefficiency, while the police are often viewed as unprofessional and influenced by wealth and power.
Against this backdrop, the manner of Wontumi’s arrest takes on added significance. It is not merely a legal matter but a reflection of broader systemic issues. When justice appears politicized, it undermines the very foundations of democracy and fuels public disillusionment. The perception of fairness and impartiality in legal proceedings is crucial for maintaining public trust and ensuring national stability.
Turning to the legal framework, Article 14(4) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution is unambiguous: “A person who is arrested or detained shall be entitled to bail unless the offense is punishable by death or imprisonment exceeding ten years.” Chairman Wontumi is not charged with a capital offense. He is a prominent public figure with a known address and no indication of flight risk. And yet, reports suggest bail conditions were set at GH₵50 million with two justified sureties. This appears excessive when compared to similar or more severe cases. For instance, in the case of David Vondee, an NDC Member of Parliament charged with allegedly defrauding a private firm of $2.4 million, the courts granted bail of GH₵2 million. Similarly, Tsatsu Tsikata, once convicted under controversial political circumstances, was granted bail pending appeal and ultimately acquitted—reinforcing the principle that justice must allow space for fair defense and due process.
These cases are not cited to justify a cycle of political vendettas—far from it. Rather, they highlight that Ghana’s justice system has, at times, upheld reasonable bail standards even amid political tension. What is needed now is consistency, not vengeance. Justice must remain blind—not blink for one party and stare down the other. Such disproportionate bail conditions violate the principle of self-recognizance bail, a concept well-rooted in Ghanaian law and affirmed by Section 96(5) of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), which states that bail conditions must not be excessive. Furthermore, Article 19(2)(c) guarantees every accused person the presumption of innocence. When bail becomes punitive or implies guilt before trial, it subverts this principle and undermines the core tenets of due process.
Beyond the bail terms, the method of arrest also raises concerns. Article 15(1)–(2) of the Constitution guarantees that “The dignity of all persons shall be inviolable… No person shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” If reports of a Rambo-style arrest are accurate, then the operation was not just about enforcing the law—it was about sending a message. Such heavy-handedness may appear more as intimidation than justice and severely undermines public confidence in legal procedures.
Furthermore, questions about equality before the law must be taken seriously. Article 17 of the Constitution states clearly: “All persons shall be equal before the law… A person shall not be discriminated against on grounds of political opinion.” Yet, political observers have consistently pointed out a troubling pattern: some political actors are pursued with intense aggression, while others evade scrutiny despite similar or even more severe infractions. This apparent inconsistency chips away at the foundations of justice and reduces our democracy to a field of partisan convenience.
As a result, the arrest of Wontumi is not just about one individual. It is emblematic of how justice is perceived in Ghana. When citizens begin to believe that the law serves as a tool of political vendetta rather than as an instrument of impartial justice, it opens the door to dangerous consequences. Conspiracy theories gain traction, and it fuels and inspires the actions of anarchists. Citizens begin to ask: if the law protects some and punishes others unfairly, why obey it at all? This erosion of trust paves the way for lawlessness and civic unrest.
Nowhere is this danger more evident than in fragile regions like Bawku, where security is already on edge. Arrests that appear politically charged can ripple far beyond the courtroom. They can:
- Delegitimization of Law Enforcement: If the state is seen as unjust or partial, its agents—military, police, administrators—are no longer perceived as enforcers of law, but as agents of repression.
- Justification for Violence: Militants and aggrieved citizens now feel justified in taking justice into their own hands. They won’t see it as breaking the law; they’ll see it as defending truth against a corrupt system. When laws appear weaponized, anarchists and conspiracy theorists find fuel. They begin to frame legal processes as tools of political vendetta, not justice. And when that perception deepens, it creates a moral loophole through which individuals and groups feel justified in defying state authority. After all, if the laws no longer protect, why obey them?
- Divided Security Focus: The national security effort may become overstretched. Instead of focusing on peacekeeping in Bawku and other high-risk zones, state forces will be pulled into controlling domestic political unrest, protests, and retaliatory violence if this arrest is not handled with transparency and fairness.
Ghana’s national stability must not be the casualty of political drama.
So where do we go from here?
First, due process must be respected. If Wontumi is legally liable, let him face a fair and transparent trial—no media crucifixions, no judicial shortcuts. Second, we must reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law. The Constitution must apply to all, equally and consistently. Justice cannot be partisan. Third, political battles must be kept separate from our national security institutions. These agencies must not be drawn into political credibility contests.
Chairman Wontumi’s case may seem like a local legal issue, but it is, in truth, a national test. Not of his guilt or innocence—but of Ghana’s commitment to constitutionalism, justice, and equal treatment under the law. If we fail this test, we risk encouraging vigilante justice, destabilizing national peace, and deepening the cracks in our democratic foundation.
Justice must not only be done—it must be seen to be done.
Source: Emmanuel Ofori
