Court action against Arise Ghana Demo brought in bad faith

I, Bernard Mornah, of House No 113 Palm Street, Tantra Hill, Accra in the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana, do hereby make oath and say as follows:

1. That I am the Deponent herein and the 2nd Respondent and I depose to the facts herein which are within my personal knowledge and belief.

2. That to the extent that I depose to any matter(s) which either state(s), suggest(s), imply(ies) or hint(s) at matters of law, such matter(s) result from advice I have received from my lawyer, which advice I verily believe to be true.

3. That at the hearing of this Application, counsel shall seek the leave of this Honourable Court to refer to any and all the processes filed in connection with the instant Application as if same has been exhibited hereto and sworn to under oath.

4. That I have been served with a Motion on Notice for Restraining Order(s) pursuant to section 1(6) of the Public Order Act, 1994 [Act 491].

5. That unless expressly admitted herein or by necessary implication, I deny each and every deposition contained in the Affidavit in Support of the instant motion.

6. That paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Affidavit in Support of the instant motion are admitted.

7. That the 1st Respondent on 1st June, 2022 wrote to the Greater Accra Police Command notifying them of its intention to undertake a demonstration on the 21st and 22nd June, 2022 and further stating their intended routes. [Attached and marked as exhibit 1 is a copy of the said Letter]

8. That paragraph 7 of the Affidavit in Support of the instant motion is denied as same is false. Exhibit 1 was received by the Greater Accra Police Command on 2nd June, 2022 whereupon they asked the 2nd Respondent who delivered exhibit 1 to wait at their office for a reply. The reply was handed over to the 2nd Respondent without any meeting whatsoever.

9. That though Respondents were only obliged to give Applicant a notice for at least 5 days, in the spirit of being law abiding coupled with assisting the Police to provide adequate security for the intended demonstration, Respondents notified the Police twenty (20) days ahead of the event.

10. That the Greater Accra Regional Police Command without canvassing any reasonable excuse and without any discussions, meetings or negotiations with Respondents indicated that they were unable to provide 48-hour security for the intended demonstration as captured in exhibit GPS-2.

11. That in the same exhibit GPS-2, the Greater Accra Police command without any reasonable basis, opposed the route I had proposed in my notice and proposed what they called “traditional route” for their consideration.

12. That the terms of exhibit GPS-2 and the counter-proposals therein were without any reasonable basis for which reason Respondents wrote back to the Police indicating that we intended to proceed with the demonstration as scheduled in line with our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of assembly which includes the freedom to take part in processions and demonstrations. [Attached and marked as exhibit 2 is a copy of the said Letter by the 1st Respondent to the Police].

13. That I am advised by counsel and verily believe same to be true that per section 1(d) of the Public Order Act, 1994 (ACT 491), the Police only has the power to request the organizer(s) of a demonstration to postpone or relocate the demonstration if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the demonstration if held may lead to violence or endanger public defence, public order, public safety, public health or the running of essential services or violate the rights and freedoms of any other persons. And that save the relocation and/or postponement of a demonstration on these reasonable grounds, the Police has no power to determine the start time, closure time and/or duration of a demonstration.

14. That the National Command of the Police upon receiving exhibit 2 invited Respondents to a meeting at its Headquarters where they expressed concerns about and recommended that the 48 hour non-stop duration of the intended demonstration be changed on grounds of recent terrorism threats and attacks in the sub-region.

15. That at the said meeting, Respondents argued that the reasons canvassed by the Applicant were unreasonable and far-fetched as there has not been any terrorist attack in any of our neighboring countries on the back of a demonstration. The meeting was adjourned to a later date to allow 1st Respondents consult its members on the proposals made by the Police.

16. That at the second meeting with the top hierarchy of the Police, 1st Respondent in a spirit of good faith and consistent with our cordial cooperation with the Police, agreed to amend the duration of the demonstration from a 48-hour (non-stop) demonstration to a two-day demonstration and to postpone the demonstration for an additional one week to allow the group communicate the new changes to its members and the general public and to afford the Police ample time to adequately prepare for the event.

17. That after reaching an agreement with the Respondents on the duration of the intended demonstration, the Police suggested a change of the location of the end point of the first day of the demonstration, the frontage of the Jubilee House on grounds that same is a security zone.

18. That Respondents disagreed with this suggestion on grounds that the location of the end point for the first day, the frontage of the Jubilee House and the converging points of the second day of the demonstration, the frontage of the Parliament House of Ghana and the Ministry of Finance have been used for several demonstrations under Police protection in time past despite being security zones. And that the suggestion that a peaceful demonstration at these locations can jeopardize public order, safety or security is unreasonable.

19. That upon further deliberations, the Police eventually agreed to the routes and converging locations proposed by the Respondents and advised Respondents to present an amended notice communicating the changes. Consequently, Respondents on 8th June 2022 presented an amended letter to the Police notifying them of the new details of the demonstration and indicate1d the routes and times for each day. [Attached and marked as exhibit 3 is a copy of the said amended letter by the Respondents to the Police].

20. That the Police on receiving exhibit 3 wrote back commending Respondents for our cooperation as contained in Applicant’s exhibit GPS-5. It is worthy of note that in Applicant’s own exhibit GPS-5, they did not oppose or complain about the proposed routes for the demonstration as consensus had already been reached on same but only requested that the first day of the demonstration closes before night falls instead of 10pm.

21. That upon receiving exhibit GPS-5, 2nd Respondent indicated to the Director of Operations of the Police that he will consult with the members of 1st Respondent and communicate the group’s decision on the proposal of the Police relative to the closing time of the first day of the demonstration.

22. That before 1st Respondents could formally communicate its collective decision on exhibit GPS-5 to the Police, I was presented with Applicant’s exhibit GPS-6 in which the Police upon reliance on a so-called verbal response indicated that they were going to submit the process to the law courts for determination on grounds that we are unwilling to change the closing time for the first day of the demonstration. This claim by the Police is false as no such verbal response was communicated by Respondents to them.

23. That after reaching a decision on Applicant’s exhibit GPS-5, 1st Respondent on 22nd June 2022 wrote to the Police indicating our acceptance of their proposal and our willingness to close the first day of the demonstration before the earlier stated time of 10pm. [Attached and marked as exhibit 4 is a copy of the said Letter by 1st Respondent to the Police].

24. That on that same day, 22nd June, 2022, the Director of Operations of the Police held a meeting with the leadership of 1st Respondent in his office where it was finally agreed that the first day of the demonstration closes latest by 8pm in the evening. It therefore came to me as a surprise when I was served with the instant Application.

25. That per the agreement reached with the Police, and unlike a previous demonstration held on 17th May, 2015 under Police protection in the night against the power crises (“Dumsor”) the nation was experiencing at the time, Respondents demonstration will largely take place during the day time. Demonstrators will converge between the hours of 12pm and 3pm and move through the Nima road, to the Ako Adjei interchange and finally to the frontage of the Jubillee House by 4pm on 28th of June 2022. The second day of the demonstration will take place from 12pm-5pm.

26. That the demonstration is likely to stretch to 8pm due to the large size of the Arise Ghana coalition embarking on this demonstration and the number of speeches that will be delivered at the end point of the first day of the demonstration by leaders of the various thirty (30) groups that constitute 1st Respondent. The leadership of 1st Respondent have made ample lighting arrangements to ensure that there will be no darkness at the end point location between the hours of 6pm to 8pm.

27. That I say that the reasons canvassed by the Police are contrived with the sole purpose of denying citizens their constitutionally guaranteed right to demonstrate and express their views.

28. That threats of terrorism and terrorist attacks in Africa existed when the Police allowed other groups to demonstrate around the Jubilee House and other parts of Accra even in the night. [Attached and marked as exhibit 5 is a photograph of the 2015 demonstration against “Dumsor” that took place largely in the night].

29. That in 2015 when Police allowed the late night demonstration in Accra against “Dumsor”, Kenya and other African countries had been attacked by terrorist groups. The attitude being displayed by the Police in the instant matter is discriminatory and whimsical. [Attached and marked as exhibit 6 series are copies of media publications on terrorist threats and attacks in some African countries in 2014 and 2015.]

30. That all terrorist attacks in the sub-region in recent time have occurred during day time. Applicant will be put to strict proof to show which terrorist attacks in the sub-region or our neighboring countries have occurred at nigt.

31. That the depositions contained in Applicant’s affidavit in support specifically in paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 are false, misleading and calculated to deceive the court.

32. That after all parties have reached a compromise on the dates, time, duration and routes for the impending demonstration, the Police administration in bad faith instituted the present action with the sole purpose of frustrating Respondents from exercising their rights to register their constitutionally guaranteed about the current economic hardships, alarming levels of corruption, and human rights violations in the country.

33. That the Police in the Applicant’s exhibit GPS-5 requested Respondents to close the first day of the demonstration “before night falls” which objectively speaking is 6PM, but have at this eleventh hour run to this honorable court seeking an order directing Respondents to close the demonstration by 3pm.

34. That given the fact that Respondents have relied on the agreement reached with the Police relative to the start and closing times for the demonstration and have communicated same to the general Public, the organization and success of the demonstration will be severely hampered if the instant application is granted.

35. That I repeat paragraph 34 above and say that the grant of the instant Application which has been brought in bad faith and in breach of the agreement reached by the parties, will only empower the police to use the court as a tool to impede and frustrate the exercise of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens.

36. That to further demonstrate the bad faith by the Police, the instant application even though on notice was served on me without a return date and this further demonstrates another bad faith by the Police to move the Application on our blind side. [Attached and marked as exhibit 7 is a copy of the Application served on 1st Respondent]

37. That I am advised by Counsel and verily believe same to be true that it would be unjust for the instant Application to be granted by this Honorable court in view of the depositions contained above.