Introduction
Incidents involving the use of force in public spaces often raise questions about criminal liability, self-defence, and the limits of public retaliation. A hypothetical scenario involving Ghanaian politician Hawa Koomson allegedly using pepper spray in a crowd, followed by the crowd’s retaliatory attack and beating, presents an opportunity to explore how Ghanaian criminal law would treat such events. This article discusses the criminal liability of both parties, using relevant provisions of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) and decided Ghanaian cases.
1. Criminal Liability of Hawa Koomson
a. Use of Pepper Spray: Assault and Offensive Weapons
Under Section 86 of Act 29, assault is defined as the unlawful application of force or the threat thereof, without consent. Pepper spray—causing pain, fear, or bodily discomfort—is sufficient to constitute assault and battery under this provision.
In addition, Section 206 of Act 29 prohibits the carrying of offensive weapons in public without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Pepper spray qualifies as an offensive weapon due to its capacity to inflict pain and temporarily disable a person.
b. Relevant Ghanaian Case Law
In Republic v. Teiman & Others (2021), two men were charged with causing unlawful harm after they sprayed pepper into the eyes of others during a family dispute. The court treated the use of pepper spray as a criminal act under assault provisions.
In another case, two police constables at Achimota were sanctioned after illegally using pepper spray on a driver, reinforcing the principle that even law enforcement officers may not use such force without justification (GhanaWeb, 2021).
These precedents highlight that pepper spray is considered a weapon and its unjustified use amounts to criminal conduct.
c. Possible Defence: Self-Defence
Under Ghanaian law, self-defence is permitted only when the force used is necessary and proportionate to an imminent threat. If Koomson can show she was under attack or imminent harm and used pepper spray to prevent injury, her actions may be excused.
However, in Asante v. The Republic [1972] 2 GLR 177, the court emphasized that self-defence must not be retaliatory or excessive. If Koomson initiated the confrontation or used disproportionate force, the defence would fail.
2. Criminal Liability of the Crowd
The crowd’s response—attacking and beating Hawa Koomson—constitutes multiple criminal offences under Ghanaian law, regardless of their grievance.
a. Assault, Battery, and Unlawful Assembly
Sections 84 and 86 of Act 29 prohibit physical assaults and unlawful force. A coordinated physical attack may also amount to unlawful assembly or riot under Sections 201 to 204, where three or more persons commit violence with a common purpose.
b. Provocation Not a Defence
While the crowd may have been provoked by the pepper spray, Ghanaian law does not justify retaliatory violence. In Agyemang v. The Republic [1974] 2 GLR 398, the court acknowledged provocation as a mitigating factor in sentencing but not as a full defence against assault.
Likewise, R v. Okyere [1961] GLR 150 confirms that revenge cannot be clothed as self-defence.
c. Possible Charges Against the Crowd
Causing Harm or Unlawful Wounding (Section 69)
Assault and Battery (Section 86)
Unlawful Assembly or Riot (Sections 201–204)
If any weapons were used (sticks, stones), these would aggravate the charges under Section 70, which deals with causing harm with weapons.
This analysis illustrates that under Ghanaian criminal law, neither provocation nor political tension justifies unlawful force. Both Koomson and the crowd may face prosecution, subject to the facts of the case, particularly around the necessity and proportionality of the force used.
The courts will ultimately determine liability based on who initiated the confrontation, the immediacy of the threat, and whether the force used was excessive or justified under the law.
Thank you
*Nuworza medo ooo*
By Kafui Agbleze
