The Supreme Court of Ghana recently decided a case, Edmund Addo v The Republic, in which it held that ongoing criminal trials are not terminated by the repeal or revocation of the crime-creating enactments, even if the repealing enactments fail to provide for the saving of same.[1] The decision was justified on the general saving provisions in the Interpretation Act, 2009 (Act 792). That decision has brought to light a critical issue regarding the alignment of those saving provisions with the principle of legality and the presumption of innocence which undergird the criminal justice system. By analysing established precedents on the issue, this brief note argues that the meaning placed on the saving provisions in the Interpretation Act, 2009 (“Act 792”) by the Supreme Court contravenes these principles and precedent, thereby creating tension between the application of the general saving provisions in the Act and the constitutional rights of accused persons.
[1] Criminal Appeal No. J3/04/2022 dated 31st May, 2023 (Unreported).
