Right to Life

Introduction:

This note will discuss constitutional provisions on the right to life. In doing so, our focus will be on Article 13 of the 1992 Constitution, which protects the right to life and provides for circumstances under which a person may be lawfully deprived of his right to life.

Essence of the Right to Life:

It is without question that the right to life is the most important of all human rights because it is the right from which all other rights stem. Thus, a person can only enjoy other rights if his right to life is guaranteed.

In the case of Joseph Kwasi Quarshie v. The Republic Criminal Appeal Suit No. H2/20/17 , the appellant was convicted of the offence of murder and sentenced to death. On appeal, the Court of Appeal, in commenting on the nature of a death sentence, said:

An individual's right to life has been described as the most fundamental of all human rights. Thus, the value of life is immeasurable for any human being, and it is by no means fortuitous that the right to life is enshrined in Chapter 5 of the 1992 Constitution. Consequently, the wilful taking of an innocent life calls for the ultimate penalty, which is death.

Protection of the Right to Life under the 1992 Constitution:

In Article 13(1) of the 1992 Constitution, it is provided that:

No person shall be deprived of his life intentionally except in the exercise of the execution of a sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence under the laws of Ghana of which he has been convicted.

This provision does two things:

1. It makes it unlawful to intentionally deprive a person of his life.
2. It provides an exception under which a person may be deprived of his life by the intentional conduct of another. The exception is that a person can be deprived of his life intentionally in the exercise of a lawful sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence under the laws of Ghana. For example, in Article 3(3) of the 1992 Constitution , it is provided that a person who suspends or overthrows the Constitution commits the offence of treason and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to death. When a court sentences a person to death for suspending the constitution, he would be intentionally deprived of his life, but same would not be inconsistent with Article 13(1) (supra) because it falls within the exception provided by that provision.

Limits to the Right to Life:

Like other rights, there are limits to the right to life. According to Paust [1], while the right to life is a non-derogable human right,

It would not be correct, however, to claim that the right to life is absolute by claiming, for example, that no human being can rightly be killed or that any killing or death is necessarily violative of the right to life. Thus, the fact that a person is killed does not necessarily mean that the human right to life has been violated, and the fact that the right is non-derogable is not determinative of whether or not the right applies to prohibit a killing in the first place.

Under the 1992 Constitution, and in addition to the exception provided in Article 13(1) (supra), Article 13(2) provides instances where the deprivation of life (killing another person) would not be held to be a violation of the right to life guaranteed in Article 13(1).

1. Deprivation of Life During Lawful Acts of War:

Per Article 13(2), if a person is killed during a lawful act of war (in compliance with international and domestic laws governing warfare), his death is not considered a deprivation of his right to life. For example, if there is a war between Ghana and Nigeria, and X is killed as a result of the war, the person responsible for the death of X shall not be held to have deprived X of his life contrary to Article 13(1) (supra).

2. Deprivation of Life as a Result of the Use of Reasonably Justifiable Force:

In Article 13(2)(a)-(d), it is provided that:

A person shall not be held to have deprived another person of his life in contravention of clause (1) of this article if that other person dies … as the result of the use of force to such an extent as is reasonably justifiable in the particular circumstances –

1. for the defence of any person from violence or for the defence of property; or
2. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; or,
3. for the purposes of suppressing a riot, insurrection or mutiny; or
4. in order to prevent the commission of a crime by that person.

The effect of the above provision is that if X, for example, uses reasonably justifiable (proportionate) force to prevent Y from committing a crime, and Y's death results from that use of force, X’s use of force against Y, which resulted in Y’s death, shall not be held to be contrary to clause 1 of Article 13.

It is essential to note that the use of force must occur in the circumstances specified in (a)–(d) (supra). This means if you use force against a person because he supports a particular political party, and death results from the use of force, you would have deprived the person of his right to life contrary to clause 1 of Article 13.

Conclusion:

The right to life is guaranteed under Article 13 (1) of the 1992 Constitution . However, like other rights, it is not absolute. A person may lawfully be deprived of his right to life in the exercise of a sentence of a court, as a result of a lawful act of war, or as a result of the reasonable use of force for the purpose of defending a person from violence or the defence of his property, to effect a lawful arrest or prevent the escape of a person from lawful custody, to suppress a riot, or to prevent the commission of a crime.

References:

[1] Paust, J. J. (2002). The Right to Life in Human Rights Law and the Law of War. Sask. L. Rev., 65, 411.