The High Court has denied bail to Oliver Barker Vormawor, a key figure in the Democracy Hub protest, while granting bail to Felicity Nelson and four other individuals connected to the same case. The court granted bail of GH₵20,000 to the five accused individuals, while Barker Vormawor’s request was rejected due to concerns about the likelihood of re-offending.
Barker Vormawor, who had been released on bail for treason felony charges in an unrelated case, is now facing additional charges related to his involvement in the Democracy Hub protest. His denial of bail stems from these new charges, which were allegedly committed while he was still on bail for the earlier offence. The presiding judge raised concerns that releasing him again could lead to the commission of further offences. The Criminal Procedure Act, specifically section 96(5c), was cited in the ruling, which allows courts to deny bail if there is reasonable cause to believe the accused might commit another crime.
Despite arguments from Barker Vormawor’s legal team, led by Justice Srem Sai, the court refused to reconsider the decision. Srem Sai contended that the court’s primary focus should be whether the accused would attend trial if granted bail. He emphasized that his client has consistently appeared in court for the past three years in connection with the treason felony case. He further argued that the current misdemeanour charges are less severe, and there is no reason to believe Barker Vormawor would evade trial.
Srem Sai’s defense highlighted the reliability of Barker Vormawor in adhering to court procedures over the years. However, the court remained firm in its decision, citing the possibility of future offences as sufficient grounds to deny bail.
While Barker Vormawor faces continued detention, Felicity Nelson and four others involved in the same case were granted bail with conditions far less stringent. The court’s decision to grant them bail indicates that their alleged offences are considered less severe than those of Barker Vormawor. This decision also follows the recent ruling on a separate group of protesters, including Ama Governor, who were each granted bail of GH₵70,000.
The court has ordered that the Circuit Court commence prosecution of the case within 72 hours. If the prosecution fails to meet this deadline, the court may reconsider Barker Vormawor’s bail request. This directive places additional pressure on the prosecution to move forward with the case in a timely manner, as any delay could alter the bail conditions for Barker Vormawor.
The refusal to grant bail to Barker Vormawor has raised questions about the handling of high-profile protest leaders, particularly when they are facing multiple charges. His ongoing treason felony case already places him under intense scrutiny, and the court’s refusal to grant bail in this new instance reflects concerns about balancing justice and public safety. The decision to deny bail appears to be grounded in the principle that a repeat offence is a real risk, despite his past compliance with court orders.
Meanwhile, the court’s decision to grant bail to the other five accused individuals highlights the court’s differentiation between the alleged offences committed by them and those involving Barker Vormawor. Felicity Nelson and the other four individuals face less restrictive bail conditions, suggesting that their roles in the protest-related offences are viewed as less significant or dangerous by the court.
This series of bail rulings points to an ongoing judicial strategy of addressing each case based on the perceived threat posed by the accused and the likelihood of compliance with the legal process. Barker Vormawor’s legal team may pursue further appeals or seek to challenge the court’s decision, but for now, he remains in detention, awaiting the start of his trial.
As the legal proceedings continue, the case involving Barker Vormawor, Nelson, and the other accused individuals will likely attract continued public attention. The Democracy Hub protest and its aftermath have already sparked significant discussion about civil liberties, protest rights, and the role of the judiciary in handling politically charged cases.
With the court’s 72-hour deadline for prosecution looming, all eyes will be on the next steps in this legal saga. Whether Barker Vormawor will eventually be granted bail or continue to be detained depends largely on the prosecution’s actions and the court’s subsequent rulings. The decisions made in the coming days will not only impact the lives of those involved but could also set legal precedents for future protest-related cases in the country.
