Access to Justice

The document outlines the legal framework for prosecuting forest and wildlife offences in Ghana, detailing specific acts, the court hierarchy, and preliminary findings from a field survey of 123 courts across five regions. It identifies significant gaps in judicial enforcement, including a lack of legal knowledge among prosecutors and the need for legislative consolidation.

• The legal framework for forestry and wildlife in Ghana is fragmented across numerous old and scattered legislations, leading to inconsistencies and making it difficult for non-professionals to understand their rights and duties.
• A preliminary field survey of 123 courts in the Ashanti, Brong Ahafo, Central, Eastern, and Western regions of Ghana identified 51 forest and wildlife cases, with the majority of charges brought under the Timber Resources Management Act, the Forest Protection Act, and the Wild Animals Act.
• There is evidence of limited legal knowledge among prosecutors and courts, as seen in cases where sentences fall outside prescribed limits or where charges are brought for actions that are not legally defined as offences, such as 'entering a forest reserve without authorization'.
• Criminal proceedings are primarily initiated against individuals; companies and corporations are rarely held criminally liable, with legal actions against them typically being civil in nature.
• Access to judicial information regarding forest and wildlife offences is poor, with researchers facing difficulties obtaining charge sheets and judgments despite having official authorization.
• The document identifies a hierarchy of norms where the Constitution is supreme, followed by Acts, and then Legislative Instruments (LIs); it notes that some LIs in the wildlife sector contain penalties that contradict the limits set by their parent Acts.
• The Ghana court system for these matters consists of a hierarchy where District and Circuit courts are the most common venues for criminal proceedings, while the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court handle higher-level appeals and constitutional matters.

APA

Kudaar, E., Nakaar, B. A., Yeboah, S. O., & Acheapong, G. (2013). Access to Justice. ClientEarth. https://www.clientearth.org/media/nclbw0ul/2014-01-01-access-to-justice-ghana-ce-en.pdf

Chicago

Kudaar, Elvis, Bennette Aabangbio Nakaar, Shadrack Obeng Yeboah, and Godfred Acheapong. Access to Justice. ClientEarth, 2013. https://www.clientearth.org/media/nclbw0ul/2014-01-01-access-to-justice-ghana-ce-en.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Kudaar |first1=Elvis |last2=Nakaar |first2=Bennette Aabangbio |last3=Yeboah |first3=Shadrack Obeng |last4=Acheapong |first4=Godfred |title=Access to Justice |publisher=ClientEarth |date=November 2013 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/nclbw0ul/2014-01-01-access-to-justice-ghana-ce-en.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{kudaar2013access, author = {Kudaar, Elvis and Nakaar, Bennette Aabangbio and Yeboah, Shadrack Obeng and Acheapong, Godfred}, title = {{Access to Justice}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2013}, month = nov, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/nclbw0ul/2014-01-01-access-to-justice-ghana-ce-en.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }