The hope of embattled Salomey Awity Bafoh, the Techiman-based senior nursing officer facing a charge of abetment of crime in connection with the circulation of content attributed to the ‘Ghana Jollof’ social media account, to secure her temporary freedom has been dashed.
This follows the dismissal of an application for bail moved by her lawyers on Thursday, September 25, 2026, after she was remanded by the Adentan Circuit Court on September 17.
Justice Halimah El-Alawah Abdul-Baasit, presiding over the Vacation High Court, held that while bail is discretionary, it must be exercised judiciously.
Applicant’s submission
Counsel for the applicant, Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah, argued that the application was anchored on the constitutional presumption of innocence and the constitutional injunction that bail should be granted to all accused persons.
He contended that Section 96 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 30) is an exception and not the general rule, and therefore the burden lies on the prosecution to justify why bail should be denied.
Lawyer Baffour Awuah submitted that the prosecution’s opposition was based on bare depositions — that the offence is serious and that the accused is likely to interfere with witnesses as stated in paragraphs 13, 18 and 19 of its Affidavit in Opposition — without any evidential basis.
He further urged the court to consider that the applicant is a mother of minor children who had been separated from them for ten days, and that the offence in question is a misdemeanour which is ordinarily bailable.
Prosecution’s submission
The Republic, represented by Maame Korantemaa Aboagye Darko, opposed the application and relied entirely on its Affidavit in Opposition.
She acknowledged the applicant’s right to liberty under Chapter 5 of the 1992 Constitution but argued that Article 14(1)(g) permits curtailment of that right upon reasonable suspicion of having committed or being about to commit an offence.
According to the prosecution, investigations have revealed that the applicant facilitated the alleged offence, and her continued detention is necessary to assist police investigations, particularly to locate and arrest the second accused who is currently at large.
On the presumption of innocence, the prosecution argued that it is a necessary but not sufficient ground for bail.
It also contended that ill-health, as cited in paragraph 24 of the Affidavit in Support, cannot hold, since no medical records were attached to establish the nature or severity of her condition.
The prosecution added that given the nature of the offence, the applicant if granted bail at this stage, is likely to interfere with witnesses.
By Court
Justice Abdul-Baasit, in her ruling, emphasized that the starting point is the constitutional protection of personal liberty and the statutory framework under Act 30.
She noted that the offence is a misdemeanour and therefore generally bailable, but stressed that bailability does not confer an automatic right to bail, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in, Martin Kpebu v Attorney-General.
The Court explained that she had to determine whether any of the statutory grounds for refusing bail under Section 96(5) of Act 30 had been established.
While acknowledging that a court should not refuse bail merely because investigations are described as cyber-related, she observed that electronic and digital evidence is susceptible to alteration, deletion and concealment, and its preservation is critical.
On the facts before her, the court found that there is a live and active cyber-related investigation involving examination of electronic devices, and that releasing the applicant at this stage presents a real risk of interference with evidence and hampering of investigations.
The Court was emphatic that the ruling does not suggest guilt, stating that the applicant “remains presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction,” and that the refusal of bail is not a punishment.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 96(5)(c) of Act 30, the application was refused. The applicant is to remain in lawful custody.
The court, however, ordered the Republic to expedite investigations and to ensure the applicant receives prompt and adequate medical attention when needed, adding that she is at liberty to renew the application upon a material change in circumstances.
