The Legal Dilemma of Young Offenders in Ghana: An analysis of Abu Mohammed V. The Republic
The Legal Dilemma of Young Offenders in Ghana: An analysis of Abu Mohammed V. The Republic
Ghana’s legal system faces the challenge of balancing justice with the rehabilitation of young offenders. The case of Abu Mohammed V. The Republic exemplifies this dilemma, highlighting the tension between punitive measures and the legal protections afforded to young offenders under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2003 (Act 653).
The Juvenile Justice Act, 2003 (Act 653) provides legal provisions for children in conflict with the law. A juvenile is legally defined as a person under the age of eighteen who is in conflict with the law.[1] A juvenile offender is defined as a juvenile convicted of an offense for which the court may impose a sentence of at least one month of imprisonment, without the option of a fine[2]. Act 653, however, also defines a young offender as a young person who has been convicted of an offence for which the court has power to impose a sentence of imprisonment for one month or upwards with the option of a fine. A young person is defined as an individual aged eighteen to twenty-one.[3] Will it suffice then to say that a person above 18 years but below 21years shall be a subject under Act 653 and not the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) as Amended and Criminal and other Offences Procedure Act, 1960, (Act 30) for the purpose of punishment for a “serious offence”?
In this case, Abu Mohammed, who was 20 years old at the time of his arrest, he was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to 25 years in prison. His appeal contended that the sentence was unduly harsh and excessive, given his classification as a ‘young offender’ under Act 653. His counsel argued that the maximum sentence for a serious offense by a young offender should not exceed three years. However, the Court dismissed this argument, ruling that although the appellant was young, he did not qualify as a juvenile and was thus subject to the full extent of the adult criminal justice system.
The ruling in Abu Mohammed v. the Republic reflects the legal ambiguity surrounding young offenders in Ghana. A Supreme Court Justice noted that while Act 653 governs juveniles who commit crimes, Ghana’s 1992 Constitution sets the age of majority at 18 years. Additionally, Section 19(4) of Act 653 states: “Where it appears to the Court that the person brought before it has attained the age of eighteen years, that person shall for the purpose of this Act be deemed not to be a juvenile and shall be subject to the Procedure Act” [4]. The law also presents contradictions by recognizing special protections for young persons (aged 18–21), including a maximum detention period of three years for serious offenses. It expressly states that young offenders convicted of serious crimes; including murder, rape, defilement, indecent assault involving unlawful harm, robbery with aggravating circumstances, drug offenses, and firearm-related offenses must not be detained in adult prisons.[5] It explicitly states that young offenders convicted of serious crimes; including murder, rape, defilement, indecent assault involving unlawful harm, robbery with aggravating circumstances, drug offenses, and firearm-related offenses must not be detained in adult prisons.[6]
Considering that, all these “serious offences” defined supra may not have the option of a fine as an alternate for its punishment, a competent Court is left with the option of trying the young offender in a manner consistent with Section 19(4) of Act 653 in regular courts with sentencing guidelines similar to adult offenders.
The courts, at their discretion, may also consider the severity and circumstances of the crime and the purpose of punishment on the accused and potential young offenders and may “interfere only when it was of the opinion that, the sentence was excessive having regard to the circumstances of the case or that the sentence was wrong in principle”[7]. The purpose of punishment was reiterated as not a deterrent only to the offender but to deter others with similar criminal tendencies; it is to be retributive in the form of ensuring that justice is served; long period of confinement was meant to safeguard society -and if the accused so wished, to reform his ways.[8] In Abu Mohammed’s case, his violent actions like shooting the station manager and an attendant during the robbery led the court to dismiss any leniency based on age but focused on strictly on the lawful justification for punishment.
The dilemma, therefore, lies in reconciling inconsistencies within the legislation, discrepancies between the legislation and the Constitution, and the balance between deterrence, and rehabilitation for young offenders. Although the Ghanaian legal framework acknowledges the unique status of young offenders, inconsistencies within the Juvenile Justice Act and conflicts with constitutional provisions allow for significant judicial discretion. As demonstrated in Abu Mohammed V. the Republic, the nature of the crime often influences sentencing outcomes.
Moving forward, a more consistent statutory framework and a structured approach to sentencing young offenders are necessary to ensure that justice is both served and rehabilitative, particularly for “young persons”.
To ensure fairness in sentencing and reduce judicial ambiguity, the following recommendations are proposed:
Harmonization of Act 653 with Act 29 and Act 30 – There is a need for clearer sentencing guidelines for young offenders to prevent arbitrary sentencing disparities.
Guided Judicial Discretion – Judicial discretion must be exercised within structured sentencing principles, ensuring that deterrence does not entirely overshadow rehabilitation.
Alternative Sentencing Options – The implementation of youth detention centres, probation programs, and rehabilitative services should be explored to align with international juvenile justice models.
Legislative Reforms – Parliament should review Act 653 to eliminate contradictions and ensure that young offenders receive sentencing that balances punishment with reformation.
A clearer statutory framework is therefore necessary to eliminate judicial ambiguity and ensure that young offenders receive sentencing that is both proportionate and rehabilitative. Aligning Act 653 with constitutional provisions and international juvenile justice principles would foster a more rehabilitative approach while maintaining public safety.
[1] Section 1: Juvenile Justice Act, 2003 (Act 653)
[2] Section 60: Juvenile Justice Act, 2003 (Act 653)
[3] Section 60: Juvenile Justice Act, 2003 (Act 653)
[4] Section 19, Juvenile Justice Act, 2003 (Act 653)
[5] Section 46(3), Juvenile Justice Act, 2003 (Act 653)
[6] Section 46(7), Juvenile Justice Act, 2003 (Act 653)
[7] Apaloo V. The Republic [1975]1 GLR 112
[8] Amaniampong V. The Republic [2015] 80 GMJ, 105
