Why treason may not be an offence in Ghana

Treason is considered one of the most serious crimes against the state. It often carries severe penalties. In Ghana, both the Constitution and statutory law address this crime.

However, there is a significant gap in enforcing treason laws. This article examines whether treason is an actual offence in Ghana. It highlights inconsistencies in constitutional and statutory laws, particularly Article 19 (11) of the 1992 Constitution.

The 1992 Constitution defines treason under Article 19 (17). This provision lists three acts as treason: levying war against Ghana, assisting others to levy war, or violating any law declared by Parliament as treason.

This definition provides clarity by restricting treason to specific actions. However, it does not specify a punishment for treason.

Despite its clarity, Article 19 (17) lacks a prescribed penalty. This absence is crucial when considering Article 19 (11), which outlines the principle of legality in criminal law. According to Article 19 (11), no one can be convicted unless the offence and its penalty are defined in written law.

This principle requires three elements: a written definition of the offence, a clear description of the offence, and a stated punishment. While Article 19 (17) meets the first two requirements, it fails on the third due to lack of punishment. Thus, treason remains unenforceable under this principle.

The Criminal Offences Act of 1960 attempts to provide a penalty for treason under Section 180. It states that anyone committing treason as defined in Article 3 (3) shall face death.

However, this reference is flawed. It incorrectly cites Article 3 (3), which defines high treason only. High treason involves violent means to suspend or overthrow the Constitution.

As such, Section 180 misidentifies where to find the definition of treason. Consequently, it leaves Article 19 (17) without an applicable punishment.

The legal implications are significant. First, Ghana's Constitution defines treason under Article 19 (17). Second, there is no proper punishment attached to that definition in any written law. Third, Section 180 cannot apply because it references high treason instead.

Therefore, no one can be legally convicted or sentenced for treason in Ghana today. This aligns with Article 19 (11), which protects individuals from being convicted without proper definitions and penalties.

While treason remains unenforceable now, high treason is clearly defined under Article 3 (3). The punishment for high treason is also stated in both the Constitution and Section 180 of Act 29 as death penalty.

Thus, prosecutions for high treason are valid under current laws. High treason and regular treason are distinct offences within Ghana’s legal framework.

There exists a larger issue: no legislative provision supports enforcing regular treason as outlined in Article 19 (17). This creates a significant gap in legal enforcement.

In conclusion, while Ghana's laws define treson clearly, they lack an enforceable penalty per Article 19 (11). As such, no one can currently be punished for it legally. Urgent legislative reform is needed to amend Section 180 correctly and clarify distinctions between regular and high treason.

The Constitutional Review Committee should recommend establishing penalties for regular treson as defined under Article 19 (17). Until these reforms occur, regular treson remains unenforceable—existing only nominally without legal mechanisms for prosecution or punishment.