Abigail Bempongmaa Frempong Vrs Romeo Tetteh [2022] GHACC 162 (3 October 2022)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT ‘1’, ADENTAN, ACCRA, BEFORE HER HONOUR JUDGE DORA G. A. INKUMSAH ESHUN (MRS.) SITTING ON MONDAY THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 SUIT NO: C11/16/2021 ABIGAIL BEMPONGMAA FREMPONG APPLICANT V. ROMEO TETTEH RESPONDENT RULING ON RESPONDENT COUNSEL’S PRAYER TO HAVE RECORDED INTERVIEWS OF PARTIES AND CHILD ADMITTED AND MADE AVAILABLE TO PARTIES A family tribunal may request a probation officer or social welfare officer to prepare a Social Enquiry Report (SER) for its consideration on the issue of maintenance and the Family Tribunal shall consider the SER in making any order under section 50 of the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560). The Circuit Court, while exercising its powers to make orders for the custody of infants in matters that do not come under Matrimonial Causes in section 41 of the Court’s Act, 1993 (Act 459), must make reference to the Children’s Act, 1998 wherein lies the law on most matters relating to children in Ghana. SER’s in practice are also ordered by the courts when determining the custody of children. The purpose of the SER is to give the court the background information on the parties and child that may not necessarily be revealed in their pleadings and processes – to assist the court to make the right orders in the best interest of the child and to protect the child’s rights under section 2 of Act 560, articles 23 and 28 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana and the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560), generally. In section 38(2) of Act 560, “A child shall have a right to give account and express an opinion at a Family Tribunal [Court]”. In section 38(3) of Act 560, “A child’s right to privacy shall be respected throughout the proceedings at a Family Tribunal [Court]”. The SER is an investigative tool to assist the court and not the parties. In conducting the social enquiry, the Probation Officer or Social Welfare Officer, becomes an impartial observer or investigator who reports his findings to the court to assist the court in its decision making. He/she is not a psychologist or mediator to refer the statements of the child or one party to another party for verification or confirmation. It is the duty of the court to take the report and the other pieces of evidence as a whole, evaluate them under the rules of evidence and take a decision according to the law. In section 52(b) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), the court in its discretion may exclude relevant evidence if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by – the risk that admission of the evidence will create substantial danger of unfair prejudice or substantial danger of confusing the issues… The Family Tribunal/Court reserves the right to seal the SER and not make it available to the parties where its contents may unfairly prejudice a party against another party or especially the child. The SERs filed on 7th September 2022 and 19th September 2022 include allegations of physical and other abuses against the child and his rights by one of the parties and the people who have access to the child through that party. The court finds that revealing the details of the recorded interviews to the parties will prejudice that party against the child – thereby severely injuring the parent to child bond and the extended family bonds and relationships which the child has a right to enjoy the full measure of and needs for his healthy emotional development under sections 4 and 2 of Act 560. The child’s right to his welfare from both parents – whether they were married or not at the time of his birth and whether they continue to live together or not in section 6 of Act 560 must be protected by the court under article 12(1) of the 1992 Constitution. For these reasons, the court finds that the probative value of any omitted information from the SER in the recordings is outweighed by the risk of the recording prejudicing a party against the Ruling – Admission of SER Recording Romeo Tetteh Oct 3, 2022 Abigail B Frempong v. other party and the child, particularly. Counsel’s prayer for the admission of the recording is therefore denied. Applicant Counsel: Prince Omane-Boateng Esq., holding brief for G. K. Ntony Esq. Respondent Counsel: Bobby Banson Esq. with Alice Nimako-Debrah Esq. (SGD) DORA G. A. INKUMSAH ESHUN CIRCUIT JUDGE Ruling – Admission of SER Recording Romeo Tetteh Oct 3, 2022 Abigail B Frempong v. 3