By Gifty Boateng
A human rights court case exposes a quiet battle over presidential prerogative and prison service overreach
Ninety-eight days after President John Dramani Mahama granted amnesty to 987 prisoners, some of those freed men are still behind bars. Now they are suing.
Felix Dzifa Abusa, an ex-military officer serving life, was among 51 lifers named in the 18 August amnesty.
On 1 September, he and others packed their belongings to rejoin their families. Instead, they were summoned to the reception at Nsawam Medium Security Prison and told to pose for a photograph. Then came the news: they would serve an additional 20 years.
The directive came from Chief Superintendent James Afoakwa, the prison commander, and his ‘Panel of August 2025 Amnesty’. The plaintiffs have filed a writ at the Accra Human Rights Court, naming both as defendants.
The amnesty, granted under Article 72(1) of the 1992 Constitution in consultation with the Council of State, did not specify categories of lifers. The plaintiffs argue that the prison service has no authority to impose a new sentence let alone 20 years without judicial sanction.
“What the defendants are engaged in is an unlawful alteration of the President’s amnesty and an unconstitutional usurpation of powers vested solely in the President,” the writ states.
Lawyers for the prisoners also point to the abolition of the death penalty. Keeping men detained under “expired warrants”, they argue, is itself unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs contrast the current case with the 2003 amnesty under former President John Kufuor.
Then, lifers listed were released on condition of 13 years and four months equivalent to a standard 20-year sentence. Prominent beneficiary Issa Teri walked free.
That precedent, the plaintiffs say, is the proper model. What Nsawam’s leadership is doing now is “unprecedented” and “administratively wrong.”
Behind the legal jargon lies a deeper dispute over how prison authorities have reinterpreted amnesty rules since 2003. Before that year, death row inmates served 10 years; amnesty commuted that to three years four months 13 years four months total, then release.
After 2003, the prison service began scrapping the 10 years served on death row, requiring commuted lifers to serve 20 straight years with no remission.
The prisoners insist the service has no power to scrap any sentence only a court or the president can do that.
Abusa says he submitted a printed copy of the constitutional provision to Nsawam’s third-in-command last September and told prison headquarters he would not serve the additional 20 years because it is “unconstitutional and criminal”. He has received no reply.
The writ accuses the Ghana Prison Service of subjecting affected prisoners to “psychological torture” through these post-2003 practices. The plaintiffs want the defendants to appear in person and defend their actions. They also want permission to speak for themselves in court.
The case has wider implications. If a presidential amnesty can be effectively overridden by prison administrators, then the constitutional mercy prerogative is hollow.
And if the 2003 precedent no longer applies, hundreds of past and future amnesty beneficiaries may be serving decades they were never sentenced to.