Public confidence in any democracy depends not only on the pursuit of justice but also on the fairness of the process used to achieve it. In recent days, Ghana’s political discourse has increasingly centred on one constitutional principle: due process.
Statements by Alex Segbefia, Martin Kpebu, and Abraham Amaliba, each emphasizing adherence to constitutional procedures, have reignited a national conversation about the rule of law. Their comments have also prompted many Ghanaians to ask whether the principle of due process is being applied consistently, regardless of who is under investigation.
Segbefia, speaking on corruption-related matters, argued that allegations must be handled through established legal procedures rather than public pressure or political sentiment. Martin Kpebu criticized what he described as arbitrary treatment in the detention of NPP communicator Dennis Miracles Aboagye, maintaining his long-held position that state power should never be exercised outside the boundaries of the law. Abraham Amaliba likewise stressed that Ghana remains a constitutional democracy in which security agencies must operate within legal limits.
Viewed in isolation, these positions are difficult to dispute. Respect for due process is the cornerstone of every democratic society.
However, the debate has become more complicated because many commentators have drawn comparisons with the handling of matters involving former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta.
Reports surrounding legal proceedings involving Ofori-Atta—including discussions about international legal actions, immigration proceedings in the United States, and decisions reportedly taken by international institutions—have become central to public debate. Supporters of the former minister argue that these developments exposed weaknesses in the evidence presented against him and raised concerns about whether legal processes had become politicized. Others maintain that investigations into alleged wrongdoing must be allowed to proceed independently and that international legal decisions do not necessarily determine the merits of domestic criminal investigations.
Regardless of one’s political position, the controversy highlights broader institutional questions that deserve careful examination.
First, the quality of investigations matters. Anti-corruption agencies carry enormous responsibility, and every allegation must be supported by credible, verifiable evidence capable of withstanding scrutiny both within Ghana and internationally. Weak investigations not only jeopardize individual cases but also undermine confidence in institutions established to fight corruption.
Second, justice must never appear selective. Public trust is damaged when citizens believe that legal standards differ depending on political affiliation. The same constitutional protections afforded to one suspect should be available to every suspect, whether associated with the governing party or the opposition.
Third, political rhetoric should never replace judicial determination. Allegations belong in courtrooms, where evidence is tested through due process, not in press conferences, television studios, or social media campaigns. Public opinion may influence politics, but it should not substitute for legal proof.
Ghana’s democratic journey, now more than three decades under the 1992 Constitution, has been built upon the principles of constitutional governance, judicial independence, and respect for fundamental rights. These principles become most important precisely when they protect individuals whose cases provoke strong political emotions.
The recent debate should therefore be seen as an opportunity rather than merely another partisan controversy. If political leaders, lawyers, civil society actors, and ordinary citizens are now speaking more openly about due process, that conversation should extend beyond individual personalities or political parties. The rule of law cannot be invoked only when it benefits one’s allies and ignored when it affects one’s opponents.
Consistency is the true test of constitutional democracy.
Ultimately, the measure of Ghana’s justice system will not be how aggressively it pursues allegations of corruption, but how fairly, impartially, and professionally it investigates them. Every accused person deserves a fair hearing. Every complainant deserves an impartial investigation. Every citizen deserves confidence that the law is applied equally.
Due process should never be a political slogan. It must remain the enduring foundation upon which justice, accountability, and public trust are built.
