Redefining Justice: Dr. Dominic Akuritinga Ayine’s Bold Vision for Prosecutorial Accountability and Criminal Justice Reform

1. Dr. Ayine’s press conference yesterday marked a significant ideological shift—one that not only advances a people-centered vision of justice but also lays the groundwork for broader criminal justice reforms. These developments are deeply exciting, both in their immediate implications and in their potential for systemic change. The Presser reminded me first of the intellectualism of former AG NYB Adade; and also more importantly of the socio-legal engineering of the early PNDC years, that I felt compelled to write a something about this. We may be on the cusp of something great.
2. The most widely discussed announcement was his decision to exercise nolle prosequi with an accompanying explanation, departing from the long-held belief that the Attorney-General owes no one an explanation. But to focus only on this policy shift is to miss the deeper ideological foundation he laid out. A closer reading of his words reveals a more profound transformation at play.
3. Dr Ayine directly challenges the Supreme Court’s minmalism and embraces instead a demand for constitutional transparency.
4. In rejecting the traditional stance that the AG’s discretion is absolute and unreviewable, Ayine made a bold declaration: “The traditional view that the Attorney-General owes no one an explanation, in my view, does not comport with the architecture of our Constitution, and I absolutely disagree with it.”
5. There are two critical takeaways here. First, Ayine openly disagrees with the Supreme Court’s established position. This is not a minor deviation—it is a fundamental challenge to a judicial orthodoxy that has shielded prosecutorial discretion from scrutiny. In doing so, he demonstrates a rare commitment to principle, prioritizing accountability over unchecked power.
6. Second, his reference to the “architecture of the Constitution” signals a conceptual shift. Traditionally, legal discourse frames constitutional interpretation around the “text and spirit” of the law. Instead, Ayine’s invocation of constitutional architecture suggests a structured, logical design underpinning the Constitution—one that aligns transparency and accountability as foundational principles.
7. This departure from the minimalist view of the Supreme Court is even more consequential when he asserts that the AG must be subject to Article 296 of the Constitution. This places prosecutorial discretion under the same legal constraints as other discretionary powers, requiring fairness, reasonableness, and transparency. By doing so, Ayine not only rejects a precedent that would have expanded his own power but also imposes stricter scrutiny on his office.
8. In taking this stance, Ayine breathes new life into Justice Pwamang’s minority opinion—a view that has, in hindsight, proven to be more aligned with modern democratic principles. Pwamang argued: “The decisions to prosecute and to terminate prosecution of suspected offenders is a matter of immense public interest. Furthermore, it affects the rights of the suspected offenders who may be compelled to suffer the indignation of prosecution when there is seriously no point in mounting prosecution on the facts of the case. It is because of these considerations that the modern trend in democracies is for prosecutorial authorities to be open about the factors on which they take the decisions to initiate or terminate prosecutions.”
9. This reasoning is as elegant as it is transformative. By embracing this perspective, Ayine is pushing Ghana’s criminal justice system toward a more open, accountable model—one where decisions that impact people’s freedoms are subject to greater public justification.
10. Perhaps even more consequential for criminal justice reform was Ayine’s response to a question about pretrial procedures: “I do not believe in arresting and charging a person before going to look for evidence.”
11. What may seem like a self-evident principle is, in reality, a direct repudiation of how the Ghanaian justice system currently operates.
12. Today, the police indiscriminately arrest individuals without clear distinctions between persons of interest and suspects. The moment one steps into a police station, they are immediately given a caution statement, charged with an offence, and required to write a charge statement—often before any meaningful investigation has been conducted.
13. A proper legal process should follow a simple order:
    a. Investigate first, then charge.
    b. If there isn’t sufficient evidence to sustain a charge, do not arrest.
    c. Once a charge is laid, it should mean that the police are ready to proceed to trial, not that they are still looking for evidence.
14. Instead, the prevailing system reverses this logic: police arrest first, charge immediately, and only then begin gathering evidence. This leads to countless innocent individuals being remanded into custody for indefinite periods, often simply because the police have yet to complete their investigations.
15. For many, this results in an endless cycle of remand renewals, particularly for those without legal representation. Some detainees spend years in pretrial detention despite the absence of any compelling evidence against them.
16. What then is the way forward?
17. Ayine’s stance should not just be about rhetoric—it opens the door for sweeping legislative interventions to curb these abuses, including:
    a. Setting a statutory threshold for laying charges, ensuring that arrests and charges are based on substantial evidence, not mere suspicion.
    b. Reforming remand procedures to prevent detention being used as a tool for incomplete investigations.
    c. Mandating prosecutorial transparency, including obligations to disclose reasoning for key decisions.
    d. Judicial training and enforcement mechanisms to prevent the automatic approval of police remand requests.
18. This is a a real turning point for Criminal Justice
19. Dr. Ayine’s commitments signal a fundamental departure from the status quo. His position not only challenges entrenched judicial precedent but also redefines how prosecutorial discretion should be exercised in a constitutional democracy.
20. If fully implemented, these reforms could transform Ghana’s criminal justice system into one where liberty is protected, police powers are checked, and justice is truly aligned with constitutional principles.
21. This moment should not be taken lightly. It is not just about changing how nolle prosequi is applied—it is about a philosophical shift in how justice is conceived and delivered. And that is why it is profoundly exciting.
22. In Justice Sai, he has an able deputy! I trust that they can realize this vision even more clearly as the PNDC was in its support for women’s rights! This must be the era of purposeful criminal justice reform; as well the expansion of a left-leaning, social-democratic vision of justice! I am here for it!

Shalom

By’: Oliver Barker-Vormawor, a private legal practitioner and Senior Partner at Merton & Everett LLP, a Law and Policy Consultancy Firm