Here is a rewritten, comprehensive, and SEO-optimized article based on the provided text. It is structured with proper HTML tags, expanded for pedagogical value, and optimized for search engines while maintaining the original legal and factual integrity.

Constitutional Responsibility: Why Attendance at Trial is Mandatory, Not an Option

By Emmanuel Adabayeri | Published: January 19, 2026

Introduction

In recent weeks, public discourse in Ghana has been dominated by a controversial legal theory: the suggestion that an individual charged with a criminal offense has no legal obligation to appear in court for their trial. While this narrative has gained traction in certain circles, it stands in direct contradiction to the foundational principles of Ghanaian jurisprudence.

Under the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, the right to a fair trial is sacrosanct. However, this right is not absolute; it is balanced by the constitutional responsibility of an accused person to submit to the jurisdiction of the court. This article explores why attendance at trial is a mandatory constitutional requirement, not a discretionary choice, particularly for public officials who act as trustees of the people’s sovereignty.

Key Points

Background

To understand the gravity of this issue, one must look at the source of legal authority in Ghana. The 1992 Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any custom, practice, or statutory law that contradicts it is void. Recently, arguments have surfaced suggesting that an accused individual is under no obligation to physically present themselves before a judge.

This proposition does not align with the letter or the spirit of the Constitution. It is a misinterpretation of the right to fair trial provisions. The confusion often stems from a misunderstanding of how the legal system handles non-compliance. The Constitution does not grant a right to be absent; rather, it provides a procedural framework for how the court proceeds when an accused person chooses to be absent through refusal or misconduct.

Furthermore, this discussion gains urgency when considering high-profile cases involving former government officials. In such instances, the issue transcends mere criminal procedure and touches on the very nature of democratic governance and public trust.

Analysis

The legal analysis of trial attendance rests on the interpretation of specific constitutional provisions. Let us examine the text and intent of the law.

Article 19(3): The Constitutional Mandate

Article 19(3) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana is the governing provision. It states:

“The trial of a person charged with a criminal offence shall take place in his presence unless—
(a) he refuses to appear before the court for the trial of the offence after he has been duly notified of the trial; or
(b) he conducts himself in such a manner as to render the continuance of the proceedings in his presence impracticable and the court orders him to be removed.”

The operative word here is “shall.” In legal interpretation, “shall” is a mandatory term. It imposes a duty. It does not mean “may” or “can.” The Constitution establishes presence at trial as the standard procedure. The two exceptions listed—refusal to appear or disruptive conduct—are not rights granted to the accused. Instead, they are safeguards for the court.

These exceptions allow the judicial process to continue despite the accused’s defiance. They do not confer a legal entitlement to avoid court. If an accused person refuses to attend, the court is empowered to proceed in their absence, but this is a consequence of the accused’s non-compliance, not an exercise of a constitutional right.

The Spirit of the Constitution: Probity and Accountability

The Constitution possesses both a literal text and a guiding spirit. The spirit of the 1992 Constitution, forged in the wake of military rule, is rooted in democratic accountability. The preamble to the Constitution explicitly affirms principles of probity and accountability.

Justice is not solely about protecting the rights of the accused; it is also about ensuring that the rule of law is respected. If the right to a fair trial could be interpreted as a license to evade trial entirely, the entire judicial system would collapse. Criminal charges would remain indefinitely pending, and victims of alleged crimes would be denied closure.

Therefore, the Constitution’s intent is clear: an accused person is expected to submit to the authority of the court and answer to the charges in person. This ensures that the administration of justice is not frustrated by defiance or disorderly behavior.

Practical Advice

For individuals navigating the criminal justice system in Ghana, understanding the practical implications of these constitutional principles is vital.

Understanding the Notification Process

For an accused person to be in violation of Article 19(3)(a), they must have been “duly notified.” Legal practitioners should ensure that their clients receive formal notice of trial dates. If a client has not been properly served, the court cannot proceed in their absence without violating their rights. However, once notification is confirmed, attendance becomes a non-negotiable requirement.

Managing Courtroom Conduct

Article 19(3)(b) addresses behavior that renders proceedings “impracticable.” Legal counsel must advise clients on courtroom etiquette. Disruptive behavior does not assert a right; it invites the court to order removal. Once removed, the trial continues in the accused’s absence. The practical advice is clear: maintain decorum to preserve the right to be present during one’s own trial.

For Public Officials and Former Officeholders

For former ministers, CEOs, and public servants, the stakes are higher. Under Article 1(1) of the Constitution, sovereignty resides with the people. Public officials exercise authority as trustees of the people’s power. Consequently, they have a heightened duty of public accountability.

If charged with a crime, a former public official should view court attendance not just as a legal obligation, but as a fulfillment of their fiduciary duty to the citizenry. Attempting to avoid court undermines public trust and contradicts the values of probity accepted upon assuming office.

FAQ

Conclusion

The narrative that an accused person has no legal responsibility to appear in court is a misinterpretation of Ghana’s constitutional framework. Attendance at trial is a fundamental aspect of the judicial process, designed to ensure that the accused can answer charges directly and that justice is administered transparently.

Article 19(3) establishes presence as the rule, allowing exceptions only in cases of refusal or misconduct. This framework upholds the broader constitutional spirit of probity and accountability. This is particularly pertinent for former public officials who, having managed the sovereign resources of the people, bear a heavy responsibility to submit to the courts of the Republic. Ultimately, the right to a fair trial cannot be transformed into a license to evade justice. True justice requires both the protection of rights and the fulfillment of responsibilities.

Sources

• The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana. Article 19: Fair Trial; Article 1: Sovereignty of Ghana.
• Adabayeri, E. (2026). “Attendance at trial is a constitutional responsibility, not an option.” Life Pulse Daily.
• Legal principles on criminal procedure and constitutional interpretation in Ghana.