Speed, Rights, and Reality: A Critical Reflection on Section 33 of Ghana’s Juvenile Justice Act

helenhall5
1 hour ago
7 min read

Deladem Ohenewaa Mensah, PhD Candidate and HPL at NLS https://www.ntu.ac.uk/study-and-courses/courses/our-students-stories/law/eunice-deladem-ohenewaa-mensah2

The Juvenile Justice Act of 2003 (Act 653, hereafter the JJA) in Ghana marked a landmark attempt to transform the state's engagement with juvenile offenders. The Act emphasised welfare-oriented strategies, diversionary methods, the creation of specialised juvenile courts, and a dedication to prioritising rehabilitation over punitive actions. Nonetheless, the implementation of the Act has not entirely adhered to its intended principles. Section 33 of the Act exemplifies both its promise and limitations. This provision establishes a foundation for modelling Ghana's juvenile justice system on those of Canada and New Zealand, nations often praised for their advanced policies in this area.

Speedy Trials and Systemic Realities

In Ghana, when a case against a juvenile is brought before a juvenile court, Section 33 mandates that the case be handled "expeditiously". It also provides a straightforward enforcement mechanism, which states that if the case is not resolved within six months of the juvenile's initial appearance, the juvenile must be discharged and cannot be retried for the same offence. At first glance, it is clear that the objective is to save children from prolonged pre-trial limbo and the negative consequences of delayed justice. However, the impact is more complicated than a simple case of prolonged trial or delayed justice.The provision is underpinned by the idea that protracted uncertainty and pre-trial imprisonment are particularly detrimental to the development and social reintegration of children. Hence, by establishing a specific timeline for trial, the Act compels the courts and the prosecutors to give priority to cases involving juveniles and ensure a speedy trial and conclusion. This statutory principle is there, a rights-protective one.

In systems where slack and institutional laxity can lead to judicial challenges and miscarriages of justice, bright-line time limits establish accountability and ensure that administrators and prosecutors are unable to postpone hearings indefinitely without repercussions. The established legal timelines can serve as a safeguard in environments like Ghana, with inadequate resources, increasing the risk of delay and procedural neglect, where cases are particularly susceptible to repeated delays. These factors have already led to overcrowded prisons in Ghana, and no clear distinction between remand and convicted offenders' incarceration spaces.

However, whilst the impetus to introduce these same bright lines is clear, these provisions aimed at protecting defendants can also create perverse outcomes when they meet the same chronic resource constraints that exist in Ghana. These include insufficient personnel, logistical limitations, restricted access to legal aid, and an excessive workload on the few legal professionals who work in the juvenile justice sector. Thus, implementing a six-month dismissal policy may result in cursory case closures, which do not necessarily indicate fair outcomes but rather arise from systemic capacity constraints. This approach compromises justice for victims, hinders the effective reintegration of juvenile offenders, and may unintentionally aggravate instability in local communities. Research in Ghana indicates that the Child Panel system is not functioning as intended, and that the overarching systemic inadequacies hinder the legislative goals of the JJA.

Challenges, Gaps, and Pathways for Reform

Consequently, when dismissal is the sanction for delay, prosecutors may deliberately suspend some investigations, seek other charges in different jurisdictions, or escalate cases to adult courts under the "exceptional circumstances" provision to circumvent the six-month limitation. The "exceptional circumstances" in Section 17 of the JJA permit exceptions for juveniles to be prosecuted as adults under certain circumstances, and this could be used by prosecutors to bypass child protection measures. While the provision does not specify what these exceptional circumstances are, the clause allows departures from standard juvenile courts in particular limited situations, which can create an avenue for procedural gaming. There is the possibility that recurrent arrests or distinct charges may be used to undermine the regulation while allowing the fundamental activity to remain unaddressed. Scholars have also cautioned that formal regulations may be undermined by informal practices, an outcome that could potentially ensue from the six-month bar on prosecution in juvenile cases in Ghana.

Further, the legal mandate places a significant demand on the judicial system; however, the successful execution of the legislation depends on the efficient functioning of alternative resolution mechanisms, such as the child panels and diversionary schemes, in conjunction with sufficiently funded support services for individuals awaiting trial and even those who have been sentenced. Although the JJA presents a commendable framework for alternative resolution, the practical implementation in numerous regions reveals that essential mechanisms, such as the child panels and community-based initiatives, such as the diversionary schemes, are either inadequately developed or entirely absent. Thus, the designated six-month timeframe threatens to transform juvenile trials into a rigid instrument, rather than an essential element of a holistic and child-centric legal process, when there is no parallel investment in diversion programs and community-based resolutions.

Beyond Section 33, there is a substantial compliance gap in Ghana's juvenile justice system, because policies and laws are frequently not implemented or implemented ineffectively, meaning that juvenile offenders do not benefit from the legal reforms. Critical concerns include the absence of a viable national juvenile justice information system, dysfunctional or defunct child panels, a lack of training for professionals in the security and justice sectors, and insufficient resources to facilitate rehabilitation and mitigate recidivism. Despite the JJA's comprehensive welfare provisions and rehabilitative objectives, its implementation with habitual imprisonment of juveniles, absence of psychological assistance, and overcrowded institutions renders it just a document devoid of substantial benefits for juvenile offenders. In the absence of continuous investment in the industry and efficient oversight to assure ongoing advancement and achievement, the legislative assurances in the JJA are devoid of substance.

There is also the challenge of Institutional fragmentation. Juvenile justice issues are handled by police, courts, social services, and community organisations. This division of labour may cause major care and support gaps, leading to many young people slipping through the system if these organisations do not coordinate. Consequently, vulnerable young offenders and victims may not get the protection and services they need to be safe. Without effective rehabilitation treatments, these youngsters may struggle to reintegrate into society, increasing the risk of recidivism. A more comprehensive and collaborative approach among various authorities is needed to create a seamless support structure that protects adolescent rights and supports effective rehabilitation and reintegration. Well-defined communication channels and shared duties may aid young offenders in bridging the gaps and create a complete safety net, possibly improving their outcomes.

In addition, while the law promises certain protections for young people involved in the juvenile justice system, the reality is often quite different. Too many juveniles end up in court without really getting the help they need from legal professionals. This lack of proper legal guidance seriously undermines whether they are treated fairly in practice. In essence, having these rights written down is not sufficient if they cannot be enforced in practice. There is therefore the need to ensure that things like access to legal representation, updating parents and guardians on the progress of work, and using juvenile-appropriate approaches to justice delivery are in place to create meaningful support systems and deliver justice.

Creating such a support system can be challenging, considering all the issues discussed above. However, investing in alternatives, not only in deadlines for the adjudication of juvenile cases, can go a long way to achieve a justice system that truly delivers justice. Section 33 of the JJA could be a useful tool if the State backs diversion, legal aid, functional child panels and speedy social-work assessments in Ghana. The priority on juvenile justice must shift from successfully prosecuting and winning cases to funding and training of staff for community-based programmes and robust case-management that resolves matters within statutory timeframes.

The juvenile justice system must have systemic safeguards against procedural gaming that could be used to circumvent the 6 months restriction. Procedural rules could be amended to close loopholes. For example, a restriction on refiling the same facts under different charges and in different courts could be placed on juvenile cases. There should be clearer definitions for exceptions under which juveniles are sent to adult courts under Section 17, and oversight mechanisms to monitor prosecutorial delay.

Ghana could embrace restorative processes as the default for juvenile offenders, as has been successfully implemented in other jurisdictions. For example, New Zealand’s Family Group Conference model shows how embedding community-led restorative mechanisms in the criminal justice system reduces court loads and protects children from harsh procedural consequences. To implement this in Ghana, the state must ensure it is culturally aligned, just as was the case during Ghana’s pre-colonial criminal justice regime. In addition, the child panels must be resourced, trained and made representative to avoid tokenism.

In conclusion, Section 33 is an ethical assertion: children ought not to remain in legal uncertainty. However, in the absence of administrative capacity, diversion infrastructure, and procedural protections to render six months meaningful, the regulation may result in dismissals that fail to heal victims or tackle underlying issues. Whilst Ghana’s Act 653 has a robust normative framework, is welfare orientated, creates opportunity for diversion, and has specialist courts, it requires financing, coordination, and continuous monitoring. The success in New Zealand may provide guidance for reforming the implementation of the JJA. Protective timelines are significant, although their efficacy is contingent upon integration within a framework that reduces dependence on judicial intervention and custody in the first place.

Speed, Rights, and Reality: A Critical Reflection on Section 33 of Ghana’s Juvenile Justice Act

Recent Posts

Comments