By Stephen Apolima
Legal Analyst
Case Overview
The plaintiff, Kwabena Baffour Asare, a Ghanaian resident in Germany, was wrongfully prevented from leaving Ghana by immigration officers due to an erroneous database match with a “wanted person” named Kwabena Asare. Despite presenting a valid Police Extract confirming his innocence, Asare was unlawfully detained on June 18, 2022, causing him to miss his employment deadline in Germany and ultimately lose his job. The court found the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS) negligent and awarded damages.
Key Legal Issues
The primary legal issues were whether GIS owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, whether there was a breach of that duty that resulted in damages, whether the plaintiff’s freedom of movement was unlawfully restricted in violation of Article 21(1)(g) of the 1992 Constitution, and whether his detention violated Article 14(1) and (5). The case also examined whether GIS’s statutory authority under the Immigration Act provided immunity from negligence claims.
Court’s Reasoning
Regarding the incident on June 17, 2022, the court determined that GIS had a legal obligation to conduct immigration checks reasonably. The officers detained the plaintiff based on a 94% database match, which constituted “reasonable suspicion” under Section 12 of the Immigration Act 573. Since the officers acted within statutory procedures, the court found no negligence on their part. However, the events of June 18, 2022, led to a different conclusion. The officers’ refusal to accept or verify the Police Extract (Exhibit D) confirming the plaintiff’s innocence was deemed unreasonable. Their failure to verify the document through standard phone verification procedures fell below the standard of a “reasonable person” as established in Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks. The court concluded that this delay directly caused the plaintiff to miss his job deadline in Germany, thereby establishing proximate cause.
The court further found that the detention on June 18 violated the plaintiff’s freedom of movement under Article 21(1)(g) of the 1992 Constitution, as there were no lawful grounds for the detention. Additionally, the prolonged detention without justification breached Article 14(1), warranting compensation. The court dismissed GIS’s defense of statutory immunity, referencing Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, which holds that public bodies are liable for negligence if their conduct falls below common law standards.
Damages Awarded
The court awarded GHS 650,000 in general damages for negligence and constitutional rights violations. The plaintiff also received GHS 250,000 for loss of earnings, equivalent to 12 months’ salary, and GHS 14,000 in special damages covering legal fees, accommodation, and transport expenses. Additionally, litigation costs of GHS 50,000 were awarded.
Critical Evaluation
The court correctly applied established legal precedents, including Donoghue v. Stevenson to establish the duty of care and Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks to assess the standard of care. The ruling clarified that statutory authority does not grant public agencies immunity from negligence claims when their conduct is unreasonable. By emphasizing procedural diligence, the judgment reinforces the need for immigration authorities to balance national security with individuals’ rights, ensuring that wrongful detentions are prevented.
Conclusion
This judgment stands as a landmark decision in Ghana’s legal landscape, affirming that statutory powers must be exercised with due care to uphold constitutional rights. By holding GIS accountable for its unreasonable conduct on June 18, the court highlighted the importance of balancing security measures with respect for individual freedoms and livelihoods.
