GH High Court Orders Continuation of Latif Iddrisu Assault Case

The High Court in Ghana has ordered the continuation of an eight-year-old assault case involving Multimedia journalist Latif Iddrisu, the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), and the Attorney-General (A-G). This decision follows the court's rejection of a request by the State for a further adjournment to pursue an out-of-court settlement. Justice Eudora Christina Dadson, citing the protracted nature of the litigation and the minimal progress made on settlement discussions over several months, ruled that the trial must proceed. The ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to expediting justice and preventing undue delays, even in cases where alternative dispute resolution is being explored, particularly when state actors are involved and accountability is paramount.

The Ghanaian High Court has recently issued a significant directive, ordering the continuation of the long-standing assault case brought by journalist Latif Iddrisu against the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and the Attorney-General (A-G). This decision, rendered by Justice Eudora Christina Dadson, rejected a plea from the State for yet another adjournment to facilitate an out-of-court settlement, a process that has seen little tangible progress over several months. The ruling brings an eight-year-old matter back to active trial proceedings, highlighting the judiciary's increasing impatience with protracted litigation, especially when state institutions are defendants.

This development is crucial for legal practitioners in Ghana, as it reaffirms the courts' commitment to the timely administration of justice and sets a precedent regarding the limits of judicial discretion in granting adjournments for settlement purposes. It signals a clear message that while alternative dispute resolution is encouraged, it cannot be used as a tactic to unduly delay proceedings. The case, which involves allegations of police brutality and seeks substantial damages, also brings into sharp focus the accountability of state security agencies and the government's legal representatives in ensuring prompt resolution of such matters.

The genesis of the case dates back to March 27, 2018, when Latif Iddrisu, a journalist with The Multimedia Group, was allegedly assaulted by police officers while covering a protest at the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) headquarters in Accra. The assault reportedly left Mr. Iddrisu with a fractured skull and other severe injuries. In response, Mr. Iddrisu and his employers initiated legal proceedings against the IGP and the Attorney-General, seeking GH₵10 million in compensatory damages.

The legal framework governing such proceedings in Ghana includes the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), and the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30). The Attorney-General, as per Article 88(5) of the 1992 Constitution, is responsible for the institution and conduct of all civil cases on behalf of the State, and all civil proceedings against the State are to be instituted against the Attorney-General as defendant. The Inspector-General of Police, as the head of the Ghana Police Service, is responsible for its operational control and administration. The case has been characterized by numerous adjournments and changes in presiding judges over its eight-year lifespan, contributing to its prolonged duration.

The High Court's decision to reject the State's request for a further adjournment, despite ongoing settlement talks, aligns with the judiciary's broader mandate to ensure efficient justice delivery. While Ghanaian courts generally encourage out-of-court settlements and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, as evidenced by provisions within the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), this encouragement is not absolute and is balanced against the need to prevent undue delays. Order 37 Rule 3 of C.I. 47 grants courts discretion to adjourn proceedings if it is deemed "just and reasonable," but this discretion must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously.

Justice Dadson's ruling specifically noted the prolonged period the case had been pending and the limited progress made since the State first announced its intention to settle in February 2026. This echoes principles seen in other Ghanaian cases where courts have pushed back against perceived dilatory tactics. For instance, in *Abena Gyabea & 2 Ors Vs. Kwaku Yeboah & 3 Ors* (2019), the court emphasized that a judge should continue with a matter when settlement talks break down, rather than striking out the case. Similarly, in the *Kwabena Adu Boahene* trial (2025), a High Court judge refused an adjournment request based on a pending Supreme Court application for prohibition, asserting that the mere pendency of an interlocutory matter does not automatically justify a stay of proceedings.

The role of the Attorney-General in civil proceedings against the State, as outlined in Article 88(5) of the Constitution, places a significant responsibility on the office to manage such cases effectively. The repeated requests for adjournment, with minimal demonstrable progress towards a settlement, could be interpreted as a failure to discharge this responsibility efficiently. While the court affirmed that any future settlement agreement could still be adopted, the insistence on continuing the trial signals a judicial unwillingness to allow the settlement process to indefinitely stall substantive proceedings. This approach reinforces the principle that the pursuit of amicable resolution should not undermine the fundamental right to a fair and expeditious trial.

The High Court's order for the continuation of the Latif Iddrisu assault case serves as a critical reminder to legal practitioners, particularly those representing state entities, of the judiciary's firm stance against procedural delays. It underscores that while courts are open to alternative dispute resolution, such avenues must be pursued diligently and not become instruments for prolonging litigation. The ruling reinforces the expectation that state actors, including the Attorney-General and the Inspector-General of Police, must demonstrate genuine commitment and concrete progress when seeking adjournments for settlement purposes.

Practitioners should take note that courts will scrutinize the reasons for adjournments, especially in long-running cases, and will not hesitate to order trials to proceed if insufficient progress is shown. This case highlights the importance of proactive case management and robust engagement in settlement discussions to avoid judicial directives that may be perceived as unfavorable. Moving forward, all parties involved in litigation with state institutions should anticipate a more stringent application of procedural timelines and a heightened emphasis on achieving substantive justice without undue delay.