NPP Bono Regional Chairman: Why Circuit Court Denied Abronye DC Bail
- The Circuit Court 9 has refused bail for NPP Bono Regional Chairman Kwame Baffoe, popularly known as Abronye DC, and ordered his remand into custody
- The court ruled that there were reasonable grounds to believe he could commit further offences if released
- The decision, which has sparked political reactions, has been adjourned to May 27, 2026, as prosecution prepares for trial proceedings
The Circuit Court 9 has released its full reasoning for denying bail to New Patriotic Party (NPP) Bono Regional Chairman, Kwame Baffoe, widely known as Abronye DC
It explained that he was remanded because the court believed he could commit further offences if released.
Source: UGC
The ruling, delivered on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, six days after the initial decision, sets out the legal basis for the court’s action and confirms that Abronye DC will remain in custody as his trial proceeds.
According to a report by Citnewsroom, the presiding judge, Joseph Yennuban Kunsong, stated in his reasoned ruling that the court was satisfied there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused could reoffend if granted bail.
Abronye DC is facing charges of offensive conduct conducive to the breach of peace and publication of false news.
The court relied on Section 96(5)(c) and (d) of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), which permits the denial of bail where there is a likelihood that an accused person may commit further offences while on release.
Abronye's lawyers argued constitutional rights
During earlier proceedings, the accused pleaded not guilty after the charges were read and explained to him.
His lawyers urged the court to grant bail, arguing that he had already been placed on police enquiry bail on a GH¢50,000 bond with two sureties.
They also maintained that he had consistently honoured police invitations and therefore did not pose a flight risk.
The defence further contended that the charges against him had not yet been proven, arguing that keeping him in custody would infringe on his constitutional rights, including freedom of expression,
Abronye's lawyers cited Article 14 of the 1992 Constitution and referencing the Supreme Court decision in Martin Kpebu v The Republic.
Prosecution opposed bail over alleged repeated conduct
The prosecution opposed the bail application, arguing that the accused was already facing a similar charge before another court.
They further maintained that the alleged offence was committed while he was already on bail, raising concerns about repeated conduct.
According to prosecutors, releasing him again would increase the likelihood of further offences.
They relied on provisions including Sections 96(5)(c) and (d) and Section 208(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), as well as Section 296(4) of Act 30.
In its detailed ruling, the court held that after considering submissions from both the defence and prosecution, it was persuaded that granting bail would expose the accused to the risk of reoffending.
The judge therefore refused the bail application and ordered that Abronye DC be remanded into BNI custody pending the determination of the case.
The court also directed the prosecution to file disclosures within 14 days to facilitate a speedy trial.
The matter has been adjourned to May 27, 2026.
Political reaction follows court ruling
The ruling has triggered political reactions, particularly from the Minority in Parliament.
Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin criticised the decision, arguing that the court misapplied the law in refusing bail.
He further stated that he would “continue to disrespect” the judge over what he described as an incorrect interpretation of the legal provisions governing bail.
His remarks have since reignited public debate over judicial independence and the limits of political commentary on court decisions.
Supreme Court dismisses Gifty Oware-Mensah's application
Earlier, YEN.com.gh reported that the Supreme Court had dismissed another application by former National Service Authority Deputy Executive Director, Gifty Oware-Mensah.
The court held that the constitutional challenge to a practice direction on witness disclosure did not meet the threshold for a stay of proceedings.
She was drgged to court for allegedly causing financial loss of over GH¢38 million through a ghost names scheme, charges she has denied.
Source: YEN.com.gh
