DISCRETION, <i>NOLLE PROSEQUI</i> AND THE 1992 GHANAIAN CONSTITUTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Section 54 of Ghana's Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), gives the Attorney-General discretion to enter a nolle prosequi in the course of a criminal trial. According to the orthodox view, this discretionary power is not subject to judicial review. The orthodox view raises a number of very important questions. First, is it really the case that the power to enter a nolle prosequi is not subject to judicial review? Secondly, if this is the case, how is the Attorney-General accountable for the manner in which he exercises his discretion and how is it possible to ensure that he acts fairly when he enters a nolle prosequi? This article challenges the orthodox theory and advocates a theory based on legal accountability. The proposed theory is founded on the view that accountability and fairness—which are central constituents of good governance—will be enhanced if the discretion to enter a nolle prosequi is subject to legal control. The paper goes on to show that the legal accountability theory is supported by article 296 of the 1992 Ghanaian Constitution and that it also conforms to practices found in other Commonwealth jurisdictions such as England, Canada, Fiji and Australia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".