Ghana Attorney-General to Review Shooting Case Jurisdiction Concerns

Former Member of Parliament for Dome-Kwabenya, Sarah Adwoa Safo, has formally petitioned the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to transfer a criminal case involving an alleged shooting incident from the Adenta Circuit Court to the High Court. Her legal team contends that the Circuit Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, arguing that the principal offence constitutes a first-degree felony. Under Ghanaian law, first-degree felonies are generally triable on indictment, typically by the High Court, and are associated with severe penalties, including life imprisonment. This petition highlights critical aspects of Ghana's criminal jurisdiction framework and the Attorney-General's constitutional powers in directing prosecutions.

A significant legal development has emerged in Ghana with the petition by former Member of Parliament, Sarah Adwoa Safo, to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. The petition, dated June 25, 2026, seeks the review and transfer of a criminal case concerning an alleged shooting incident from the Adenta Circuit Court to the High Court. This move is predicated on the assertion by her lawyers that the Circuit Court is not the appropriate forum, as the principal offence in question is classified as a first-degree felony, which they argue falls exclusively within the High Court's jurisdiction.

This petition brings to the fore fundamental questions regarding the jurisdictional boundaries of Ghana's lower and superior courts in criminal matters, as well as the overarching powers of the Attorney-General in the administration of criminal justice. The outcome of this request will not only determine the trajectory of a high-profile case but could also offer valuable clarification on the interpretation and application of statutory provisions governing criminal procedure and court jurisdiction in Ghana. For legal practitioners, this case underscores the importance of a meticulous understanding of jurisdictional nuances at the outset of any criminal proceeding.

The Ghanaian judicial system, structured under the 1992 Constitution and the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), delineates clear jurisdictional limits for its various courts. At the core of this structure are the Superior Courts of Judicature, including the High Court, and the lower courts, such as the Circuit Courts and District Courts. The criminal jurisdiction of these courts is primarily governed by the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), and the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30).

Under Ghanaian law, criminal offences are broadly classified into felonies and misdemeanours, with felonies further categorised into first-degree and second-degree. First-degree felonies represent the most serious crimes, often attracting severe penalties such as death or life imprisonment, and examples include murder, treason, and attempted murder. The mode of trial for an offence is crucial in determining the appropriate court. Section 2(2)(a) of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30) stipulates that an offence punishable by death or declared by any enactment to be a first-degree felony shall be tried on indictment. Conversely, Section 43 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) explicitly limits the criminal jurisdiction of a Circuit Court, excluding "treason, offences triable on indictment and offences punishable by death." This statutory framework forms the bedrock of Adwoa Safo's jurisdictional challenge.

The central argument advanced by Adwoa Safo's lawyers rests on the classification of the principal offence as a first-degree felony, thereby rendering it triable exclusively on indictment and, by extension, outside the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. As established, offences declared as first-degree felonies are indeed triable on indictment. Given that offences like attempted murder are classified as first-degree felonies, carrying potential sentences up to life imprisonment, the argument that such a case falls outside the summary jurisdiction of a Circuit Court appears to align with the statutory provisions.

The Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), specifically Section 43, clearly outlines the criminal jurisdiction of Circuit Courts, explicitly excluding offences triable on indictment. This means that if the alleged shooting incident, depending on the specific charges preferred (e.g., attempted murder, causing harm with a dangerous weapon), is indeed a first-degree felony, the Adenta Circuit Court would lack the legal competence to hear the case. The High Court, on the other hand, possesses original jurisdiction in all criminal matters, including those triable on indictment, and also exercises supervisory jurisdiction over lower courts.

The petition to the Attorney-General (AG) is a critical procedural step. Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution vests the AG with the power to initiate and conduct criminal prosecutions on behalf of the State. This constitutional mandate inherently includes the power to direct the transfer of cases, especially where jurisdictional issues or the interests of justice necessitate such a move. Recent High Court rulings have reinforced the AG's overarching prosecutorial authority, even compelling the Office of the Special Prosecutor to transfer cases to the AG's department due to questions of prosecutorial independence. While Section 106 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) provides for High Court judges to transfer cases from lower courts, the AG's constitutional role allows for a direct intervention in determining the appropriate forum for prosecution. The AG's decision will involve a careful assessment of the charges, their classification under the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), and the jurisdictional limits imposed by the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) and the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30).

This situation highlights a potential procedural misstep if the initial charges were indeed first-degree felonies brought before a Circuit Court. While the High Court has supervisory jurisdiction to correct such errors, a pre-emptive transfer by the Attorney-General, if warranted, would streamline the process and prevent protracted litigation over jurisdictional challenges. The principle of legality, which dictates that no person shall be convicted or punished for an offence unless defined and prescribed by written law, also extends to ensuring that the trial is conducted by a court of competent jurisdiction.

The petition by Sarah Adwoa Safo to the Attorney-General to transfer her alleged shooting case from the Circuit Court to the High Court underscores the critical importance of proper jurisdictional assessment in criminal proceedings. Practitioners must be acutely aware of the statutory distinctions between the criminal jurisdictions of the various courts, particularly concerning the classification of offences as felonies or misdemeanours and their corresponding modes of trial. A misstep in initiating proceedings in a court lacking jurisdiction can lead to nullification of proceedings and significant delays.

Legal professionals should closely monitor the Attorney-General’s decision in this matter, as it will provide further clarity on the practical application of jurisdictional rules and the exercise of the AG’s powers of transfer. This case serves as a timely reminder for attorneys to meticulously review the nature of charges and the jurisdictional competence of the assigned court to ensure that their clients receive a fair trial within the legally mandated framework. The outcome will undoubtedly contribute to the ongoing jurisprudence on criminal procedure and court jurisdiction in Ghana.