Seven Remanded Over Open Defecation in Accra: A Deep Dive into Urban Sanitation Enforcement

In a significant demonstration of zero-tolerance for urban unsanitary practices, the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) Sanitation Court has remanded seven individuals into custody for the offence of open defecation. This action follows their failure to pay a court-imposed fine of fifty penalty units, equivalent to GH¢600. The case, involving offenders apprehended in identified sanitation hotspots like Bubuashie, Jamestown, and Chorkor, underscores a renewed, aggressive push by city authorities to enforce sanitation by-laws and safeguard public health in Ghana’s capital. This incident is not an isolated legal action but a pivotal moment reflecting broader struggles with urban waste management, public health compliance, and the socio-economic factors driving unsanitary behaviours in dense metropolitan areas.

Introduction: The Case That Sparked National Conversation

On a recent night-time operation led by the AMA’s Environmental Health Department, seven individuals—Samuel Aryeequaye, Evans Derry, Kwesi Milla, Richard Quintin Coffie, Seidu Aminu, Awuaaba Michael, and Quarcoo Ernest—were convicted for breaching the Assembly’s sanitation by-laws. An eighth individual, Raphael Adjetey, avoided custodial sentence by promptly paying the stipulated fine. The remand orders were issued after the convicted persons defaulted on their financial penalties. This enforcement drive, part of newly intensified 24-hour operations across Accra, sends a clear message: open defecation and other public nuisances will be met with legal consequences. But what does this mean for public health, civic responsibility, and the daily reality of life in Accra’s crowded neighbourhoods?

Key Points of the AMA Enforcement Action

Offence: Open defecation in public spaces within designated market areas and sanitation hotspots.
Legal Basis: Conviction under the Accra Metropolitan Assembly’s sanitation by-laws, which derive authority from national legislation.
Penalty: A fine of fifty (50) penalty units (GH¢600). Failure to pay results in custodial remand.
Enforcement Method: Targeted day and night operations by Environmental Health Officers.
Locations: Operations focused on Bubuashie, Jamestown, and Chorkor, areas historically plagued by poor sanitation.
Authority: The AMA Sanitation Court, a specialised court handling sanitation-related offences within the metropolis.
Official Stance: The AMA has declared a shift to 24-hour enforcement to ensure compliance and protect public health.

Background: Ghana’s Sanitation Legal Framework and the AMA’s Mandate

National Legislation: The Public Health Act and Beyond

The AMA’s actions are rooted in Ghana’s Public Health Act, 2012 (Act 851). This foundational law provides for the prevention of disease, promotion, safeguarding, and maintenance of public health. Specifically, Section 56 of Act 851 deals with “unsanitary conditions” and empowers local authorities to take necessary actions against practices that compromise public sanitation. The Act grants District Assemblies, including the AMA, the power to make by-laws for the purpose of giving effect to its provisions.

These by-laws typically criminalise open defecation, indiscriminate disposal of solid and liquid waste, and the fouling of public spaces. The penalty structure, including the calculation in penalty units, is defined within these local instruments. The use of a “Sanitation Court” is a specialised judicial mechanism established within some metropolitan assemblies to expedite the hearing and determination of sanitation offences, aiming to reduce the backlog in regular courts and ensure focused adjudication.

The AMA’s Specific By-Laws and Enforcement Tools

The Accra Metropolitan Assembly has crafted detailed by-laws that operationalise Act 851 for the capital. These regulations designate specific offences, set fine ranges (often in penalty units), and outline procedures for arrest, prosecution, and sentencing. The AMA Sanitation By-Law, 2017 (L.I. 2259) is a key instrument. It stipulates fines for various infractions, with open defecation carrying a significant penalty to act as a deterrent.

The penalty unit system is a standard feature of Ghanaian legislation. The value of one penalty unit is periodically reviewed and set by the Minister of Finance. As of the current financial year, one penalty unit is GH¢12, making the fifty-unit fine for this offence GH¢600. This fine structure is designed to be punitive yet not necessarily confiscatory, aiming to change behaviour rather than simply punish poverty.

Analysis: Why the Crackdown Now? Implications and Underlying Issues

Public Health Imperative: Cholera, Diarrhoea, and Disease Burden

The primary stated driver for this enforcement surge is public health. Open defecation is a direct conduit for faecal-oral transmission of pathogens. It contaminates water sources, soil, and food, leading to outbreaks of cholera, typhoid, dysentery, and diarrhoeal diseases. Accra, with its high population density, inadequate household toilet coverage in informal settlements, and overwhelmed drainage systems, is perpetually vulnerable to such outbreaks. The AMA’s action is a direct response to this persistent health risk. By removing human waste from the immediate environment, the city aims to break the cycle of infection and reduce the burden on the healthcare system, especially during rainy seasons when contamination spreads rapidly.

Urban Aesthetics, Tourism, and Economic Impact

Beyond health, unsanitary conditions tarnish the image of Accra as a regional economic hub and tourist destination. Piles of rubbish and the visible practice of open defecation in market areas and neighbourhoods create an unwelcoming environment for investors and visitors. For a city striving for “clean city” status to attract business and tourism, this is a critical front. The economic cost of poor sanitation is immense, including healthcare expenses, lost productivity from illness, and the cost of cleaning up after preventable pollution. The enforcement drive can be seen as an economic necessity to protect the city’s brand and commercial vitality.

The Socio-Economic Reality of Offenders: Punishment vs. Infrastructure

A critical analysis must question whether punitive enforcement alone is a sustainable solution. The individuals remanded are likely from the urban poor residing in informal settlements with limited access to affordable, safe, and private household toilets or well-maintained public facilities. While this does not excuse the offence, it highlights a systemic failure: the gap between the legal requirement and the available infrastructure. Critics argue that without parallel, massive investment in building accessible and hygienic public toilets (with sustainable maintenance models) and improving household sanitation in slums, enforcement risks being perceived as punitive against the poorest rather than a comprehensive public health strategy. The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 target for universal access to sanitation by 2030 requires both “hardware” (toilets) and “software” (behaviour change, enforcement).

Enforcement Challenges: Corruption, Sustainability, and Community Buy-in

24-hour enforcement operations are resource-intensive. They require personnel, vehicles, fuel, and security. There are inherent risks of corruption, where offenders might attempt to bribe officers to avoid arrest, undermining the rule of law. Furthermore, the sustainability of such high-visibility, high-intensity operations is questionable. Can the AMA maintain this tempo indefinitely? A more effective long-term model likely involves a combination of consistent, predictable enforcement (not just periodic “crackdowns”), coupled with extensive community engagement, education, and the visible provision of alternatives. The success of this approach hinges on “community participation” and the perception that the law is applied fairly and universally.

Practical Advice: For Citizens, Communities, and Local Governments

For Individuals and Households

Know the Law: Familiarise yourself with the sanitation by-laws of your local assembly. Ignorance is not a defence.
Use Authorised Facilities: Always use designated public toilets or your own household facility. If you are a tenant, discuss with your landlord the provision or maintenance of adequate sanitation.
Plan for Emergencies: If you are travelling and anticipate a need, identify the location of public toilets in advance (e.g., at market centres, lorry stations, shopping malls).
Report Offences: You can report open defecation or indiscriminate dumping to the AMA’s hotline or environmental health officers. Community self-policing is a powerful tool.
Advocate for Infrastructure: As a community member, lobby your local assembly representative for the construction and maintenance of clean, accessible public toilets in your area. Present it as a collective need.

For Community Leaders and NGOs

Behaviour Change Communication (BCC): Organise community durbars, school programmes, and door-to-door education on the health risks of open defecation and the legal consequences. Use local languages and relatable messaging.
Public-Toilet Management: Establish or support community-managed public toilet schemes with clear, affordable user fees that cover cleaning, water, and maintenance costs. This creates ownership and sustainability.
Mapping and Advocacy: Map sanitation “hotspots” in your community and present this data to the AMA with specific requests for infrastructure and regular waste collection services.
Alternative Solutions: For areas with space constraints, promote and facilitate access to affordable, safe, and approved portable toilet options or container-based sanitation solutions.

For Local Government Authorities (Like the AMA)

Balanced Approach: Pair strict, consistent enforcement with massive, visible investment in infrastructure. Announce both simultaneously.
Transparency and Fairness: Ensure enforcement operations are conducted fairly, without discrimination. Publicise the locations and schedules of operations to deter the offence.
Data-Driven Policing: Use data from Environmental Health Officers to identify persistent offenders and chronic hotspots for targeted intervention.
Public Awareness Campaigns: Run sustained media campaigns (radio, TV, social media) featuring health experts, community leaders, and even reformed offenders explaining the “why” behind the rules.
Review Fine Structure: Assess whether the fine (GH¢600) is a meaningful deterrent for the target demographic or if a graduated fine system (first offence warning, then increasing fines) might yield better compliance.
Inter-Agency Collaboration: Work with the Ghana Water Company Limited (GWCL) to ensure areas with public toilets have reliable water supply. Collaborate with waste management companies for efficient solid waste collection to prevent diversion of waste into drains and open spaces.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: What exactly is the legal penalty for open defecation in Accra?

A: Under the AMA Sanitation By-Law, the offence of open defecation carries a fine of up to fifty (50) penalty units. As of the current rate, one penalty unit is GH¢12, making the maximum fine GH¢600. If the fine is not paid, the offender can be remanded in custody for a period the court deems fit, typically to “coerce” payment. The specific duration is at the court’s discretion.

Q2: Can I be arrested for open defecation if there is no public toilet available nearby?

A: Legally, the offence is the act itself, irrespective of the availability of facilities. However, this is a critical point of social and policy debate. While the law provides no explicit defence for lack of access, the ethical and practical responsibility of the city authority is to provide adequate, accessible, and affordable sanitation facilities. The argument “no toilet available” is a powerful advocacy tool to demand infrastructure but is not a guaranteed legal defence in court. The burden of proving availability of a “reasonable alternative” might be complex.

Q3: Who is authorised to arrest me for open defecation?

A: Arrests are typically carried out by Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) of the AMA, who are designated as enforcement officers under the by-laws. They may be accompanied by police officers from the AMA’s own police unit or the Ghana Police Service to ensure security and legality of the arrest. The offence is then prosecuted in the AMA Sanitation Court.

Q4: What is a “penalty unit” and how is its value determined?

A: A penalty unit is a standardised monetary value used across many Ghanaian laws to set fines. Its value is not fixed forever. It is reviewed and set by the Minister of Finance through a Legislative Instrument. This allows fines to be adjusted for inflation without amending every individual law. You must check the current year’s penalty unit value from the Ministry of Finance or the relevant Act to calculate the exact fine.

Q5: Is this a new law or has enforcement just intensified?

A: The sanitation by-laws and the Public Health Act are not new. What is new is the intensified and visible enforcement, particularly the announcement of 24-hour operations and the high-profile remand of offenders. This represents a shift in policy priority and operational tactics by the current AMA administration to address a long-standing problem with more aggressive measures.

Q6: What happens if I am convicted but cannot afford the GH¢600 fine?

A: If you are convicted and fail to pay the fine by the stipulated date, the court will typically issue a warrant for your committal (remand) to custody. The period of remand is intended to be sufficient to “compel” payment or secure a substitute (like serving a default prison term). However, the law and practice regarding indigent offenders is a grey area. Prolonged imprisonment for inability to pay a fine raises legal and human rights concerns, potentially violating constitutional provisions against discrimination and the right to liberty. This is a area where legal aid or a plea for a more lenient payment plan might be explored with a lawyer.