False Imprisonment Under Ghanaian Law: When Does Detention Become Unlawful?

False imprisonment is one of the most important torts protecting personal liberty. It may arise from an unlawful arrest, police detention, detention by a private individual, or even situations where a person is prevented from leaving without being physically locked in a room. But does false imprisonment require physical force? Must the person know that they are being detained? Can the police keep someone for more than 48 hours without taking them to court? Can a private person lawfully restrain someone suspected of committing a crime? This article examines what false imprisonment means under Ghanaian law and answers some of the important questions surrounding unlawful detention and personal liberty.

What Is False Imprisonment?

False imprisonment is the unlawful and complete restraint of a person’s freedom of movement without lawful justification. It is not necessary for a person to be locked inside a cell or behind four walls. A person may be falsely imprisoned through physical force, threats, intimidation, barriers, or the unlawful exercise of apparent legal authority.

The key question is simple, Was the person completely prevented from leaving, without lawful justification? False imprisonment is also actionable per se. This means that once unlawful and complete restraint is established, the claimant does not have to prove actual damage to bring an action. Evidence of physical, psychological or financial harm may, however, affect the amount of damages awarded.

The Constitutional Right to Personal Liberty

False imprisonment is closely connected to the constitutional protection of personal liberty under the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. Article 14 of the 1992 constitution provides the principal constitutional protection. It recognises that every person is entitled to personal liberty and may only be deprived of that liberty in accordance with law.

The Constitution permits detention in specific circumstances, including pursuant to a lawful court order or sentence, for certain public health and welfare purposes, for immigration purposes, and where there is reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a criminal offence. The important point is that liberty is the rule and lawful restriction is the exception.

Article 15 further protects the dignity of persons who are detained. Even where detention itself is lawful, a detained person must not be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Article 21(g) also protects freedom of movement, while Article 14(5) provides a constitutional right to compensation for a person who has been unlawfully arrested, restricted or detained.

What Must Be Proved?

Generally, a claimant alleging false imprisonment must establish three essential things:

1. There was a restraint upon liberty.

2. The restraint was complete.

3. The restraint was unlawful.

The restraint must also be directly attributable to the defendant. Importantly, the claimant does not necessarily have to prove that the defendant physically touched or locked them up.

Does False Imprisonment Require Physical Force?

NO.

 A person can be falsely imprisoned without being physically touched. For example, imagine that a security officer stands at the only exit of a room and tells a person:“You are not leaving until the police arrive.” If the person reasonably cannot leave without facing force or unlawful consequences, the circumstances may amount to false imprisonment even though the security officer never physically touches them.

The law focuses on the loss of freedom, not simply the method used to achieve it.

This principle was illustrated in Warner v Riddiford (1858), where the plaintiff was not locked inside a particular room but was effectively prevented from moving freely because police officers controlled his movements. The court recognised that imprisonment does not necessarily require confinement within four walls.

The Restraint Must Be Complete

Not every restriction of movement amounts to false imprisonment. The restraint must generally be complete. This principle is illustrated by Bird v Jones (1845). Part of a highway had been closed because of a public event, but the plaintiff could still reach his destination by another route. The court held that there was no false imprisonment because the restriction was only partial.

The principle is straightforward; A person is not falsely imprisoned merely because one route is blocked if a safe and reasonable means of escape remains available. However, the alternative means of escape must actually be reasonable.

In Sayers v Harlow UDC (1958), the plaintiff became trapped in a public lavatory because of a defective lock. Although she could escape by climbing over the door, doing so involved danger and resulted in injury. The court treated that supposed escape route as unreasonable. Therefore, the law does not expect a person to escape by risking serious injury, facing violence or committing another offence.

Must the Person Know That They Are Being Detained?

NO. This is one of the more interesting questions in false imprisonment. Knowledge of the restraint is not necessarily required.

In Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co., the plaintiff voluntarily attended his employer’s premises. Unknown to him, guards had been positioned to prevent him from leaving. Although he was unaware that his freedom had been restricted, the court held that false imprisonment had occurred.

The case demonstrates an important principle; A person can be falsely imprisoned even without knowing that they are being detained. Knowledge may become relevant when assessing damages, but it does not necessarily determine whether the tort itself has occurred.

An earlier case, Herring v Boyle, took a different approach where a child was unaware that his release from school was being withheld because of unpaid fees. That decision has been heavily criticised and does not represent the modern approach reflected in Meering.

When Is an Arrest Lawful?

Not every arrest amount to false imprisonment. A lawful arrest is a legitimate restriction of liberty. An unlawful arrest, however, may amount to false imprisonment because it results in an unjustified restraint of the person’s freedom.

Under Article 14 of the Constitution, an arrested or detained person must immediately be informed of the reason for the arrest and of the right to a lawyer of their choice, in a language they understand.The Constitution also requires that a person who is arrested and not released must be brought before a court within 48 hours. The 48-hour period is important. It does not mean 48 working hours. It is 48 consecutive hours, including weekends and public holidays.

What Happens If the 48 Hours Are Exceeded?

The Supreme Court addressed this issue in Martin Kpebu v Attorney General, rejecting the practice of excluding weekends and public holidays when calculating the constitutional period.

It is important to note that in recent times, the laws of Ghana do not permit the police to extend a person’s detention simply because the courts are not sitting or because it happens to be a weekend. Once the constitutional period expires without the person being brought before a court or otherwise lawfully dealt with, continued detention may become unconstitutional. The same case also reinforced the principle that the seriousness of an alleged offence does not automatically justify indefinite detention.

Can You Be Detained for Owing Someone Money?

Generally, NO. A private debt does not, by itself, give a creditor the right to imprison a debtor to force payment. In Sunbolf v Alford (1838), an innkeeper detained a guest because he had failed to pay his bill. The court rejected the idea that indebtedness alone justified detention.

Similarly, in Hemans v Coffie, creditors caused the plaintiff to be arrested over an unpaid debt and detained until he sold his house. The court held that imprisonment merely to compel payment of a civil debt was unlawful.

A civil debt should ordinarily be recovered through civil legal processes, not private imprisonment.

Can a Private Person Arrest or Detain Someone?

A private individual may, in appropriate circumstances, have legal authority to assist in apprehending a suspected offender. However, that authority is not unlimited.

A person who goes beyond what the law permits and unlawfully restrains another may expose themselves to liability for false imprisonment. The legality of the restraint therefore depends on the circumstances, including the person’s authority, the reason for the restraint and the way it was carried out.

Can the Police Be Liable for False Imprisonment?

YES, where the detention is unlawful.

The fact that a person is detained by the police does not automatically make the detention lawful. The police must act within the authority given to them by the Constitution and applicable legislation. The Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30) provides the statutory framework governing arrests and related procedures.

A lawful arrest may be effected by touching or confining the person, or where the person voluntarily submits to custody. However, only reasonable restraint should be used, and an arrested person should not be subjected to greater restraint than is necessary to prevent escape.

What If the Police is Acting on Someone Else’s Information?

False imprisonment is a trespass tort, meaning the unlawful restraint must be sufficiently connected to the defendant’s own act. In Narwu v Armah, the defendant reported the plaintiff to the police for alleged subversion. The police independently investigated the matter before making the arrest. The court held that the defendant had merely supplied information. The independent decision to arrest belonged to the police. The case demonstrates that making a report to the police does not automatically make the person who made the report liable for the subsequent detention. The circumstances may be different where a person directly causes or procures an unlawful arrest.

Can Someone Be Detained Without Being Physically Locked Up?

YES. Consider a situation where a person is surrounded by several security officers and told that they are not permitted to leave. There may be no locked door, prison cell or handcuffs.Yet, if the person has no safe and reasonable means of leaving and the restraint is unlawful, the situation may still constitute false imprisonment.The law is concerned with substantial loss of freedom, rather than the physical appearance of the detention.

What If the Person Is Detained for Their Own Safety?

Not every restriction of liberty is unlawful. The Constitution recognises circumstances in which liberty may legitimately be restricted, including certain situations involving public health, child welfare, immigration, court orders and reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The crucial issue is therefore not simply, “Was the person prevented from leaving?”. It is, “Was there lawful authority to prevent the person from leaving?”

False Imprisonment vs Malicious Prosecution

These two torts are sometimes confused because both may arise from wrongful involvement in the criminal justice system.

False imprisonment is concerned primarily with unlawful restraint of liberty while Malicious prosecution is concerned with the wrongful institution and continuation of criminal proceedings.

False imprisonment is actionable per se, meaning actual damage need not be proved while Malicious prosecution, on the other hand, requires proof of damage as one of its essential elements.

A person may therefore be unlawfully detained without ever being prosecuted, making false imprisonment the appropriate cause of action.

 Is Every Unlawful Arrest False Imprisonment?

Where an unlawful arrest results in a complete restraint of liberty, it will generally provide the basis for a claim in false imprisonment. However, the circumstances must still be examined carefully.

The court will consider:

1. Was the person restrained.
2. Was the restraint complete?
3. Was there lawful authority?
4.  Were constitutional safeguards observed?
5.  Did the defendant directly cause the restraint?
6. Was there any valid justification for the detention?

The mere fact that someone was arrested does not answer all these questions.

Practical Lessons

False imprisonment is ultimately about one of the most fundamental rights recognised by the Constitution, the right to personal liberty. The law does not require a person to be locked behind bars before their freedom can be unlawfully taken away. A person may be falsely imprisoned through police detention, threats, barriers, misuse of authority or other conduct that completely prevents them from leaving.

At the same time, the law recognises legitimate restrictions on liberty. Courts may order detention, the police may lawfully arrest in appropriate circumstances, and the Constitution permits restrictions for specific purposes.

A person cannot simply say, “I had a good reason,” and assume that detention was lawful. The question is whether the law authorised the restraint and whether the required constitutional safeguards were followed.

Conclusion

False imprisonment protects something fundamental: our freedom to move and leave when we choose. Under Ghanaian law, unlawful restraint does not require physical confinement, physical contact or even the claimant’s knowledge of the detention. What matters is whether there was a direct, complete and unlawful restraint of liberty without sufficient legal justification. The Constitution, particularly Article 14, provides strong protection against arbitrary arrest and detention, while cases such as Martin Kpebu v Attorney General, Asante v Republic, Bird v Jones, Sayers v Harlow UDC, Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co. and Narwu v Armah illustrate the limits of lawful restraint. The law allows liberty to be restricted but only where the law itself provides the authority to do so.