Lawyer Says Court Damages in #OccupyJulorbiHouse Rights Case Fall Short Despite Historic Ruling
Private legal practitioner Samson Lardy Anyenini has welcomed the High Court ruling that found the Ghana Police Service liable for violating the rights of journalists and protesters during the #OccupyJulorbiHouse demonstrations, but has expressed reservations about the level of compensation awarded, describing it as inadequate given the gravity of the violations.
The Human Rights Division of the High Court in Accra, presided over by His Lordship Justice Nana Brew, entered judgment on Thursday, May 14, in favour of journalist Bridget Otoo and two other applicants in the case of Bridget Otoo & 2 Others v. Inspector General of Police & Attorney-General.
The court condemned the conduct of police officers during the September 2023 protest as unconstitutional and awarded GH¢100,000 in compensatory damages, GH¢50,000 in general damages, and GH¢30,000 in legal costs to the applicants.
Speaking on Joy FM’s Midday News, Anyenini, who served as counsel for the applicants, said the award was a far cry from the minimum of one million Ghana cedis sought in the reliefs filed before the court.
“Absolutely not, because the very least in our relief filed before the court was one million Ghana cedis,” he said when asked whether the damages were punitive enough.
He acknowledged that the ruling carries significant weight in affirming constitutional protections for journalists and protesters, but maintained that the financial award does not fully reflect the scale of harm suffered by his clients.
“Whilst our clients are happy that their rights have been vindicated — press freedom, journalistic rights, and the right to work in safe conditions have been protected by the court — we believe it could have been better in terms of the compensation that ought to have been awarded,” he said.
Anyenini noted that the court justified the relatively modest award on the grounds that imposing heavier financial penalties on the police service could undermine its capacity to carry out its broader public security responsibilities.
He disagreed with that reasoning, arguing that stiffer sanctions would have served as a stronger deterrent against future misconduct by security personnel and delivered more meaningful justice to victims of police abuse.
Comments (0)