The specially constructed Senior High School inside the Nsawam Medium Security Prison was bustling. About 100 inmates were sitting at this section of the prison, waiting for a chance to taste freedom once again.

Some looked impatient, others anxious, while some appeared to be engaging their maker in prayer – the demands of the prayer I could easily guess even from 50 metres away. A simple request, for a divine touch on the hearts of the Justices, a touch they hope will lead to their exit from the prison soon.

The Justice For All Program held court hearing for 92 inmates who have been on remand at the prison on Tuesday, July 5.

For those released it was a moment of Joy; I watched 11 inmates enter the court room in a solemn mood and exit as ecstatic as the winner of the November polls may be.

At 3:00pm while leaving the prison, I was clear in my mind that the Justice for all program is one that must be replicated in all prisons across the country. The reason often put forward by those who agree with this proposition is the fact that it decongests the prisons by freeing inmates who have been on remand for long.

Beyond the decongestion, the belief that Justice is served suffices as a reason too. Whereas the charges against some inmates were dropped, others (often those who had pleaded guilty) were sentenced retrospectively; for those in the latter who were fortunate to have been held beyond the sentence given, it was their time to exit the prison.

One thing was clear all through the hearing; State Attorneys who handled prosecution, Attorneys for the defendants and the Justices had a strong desire, one that was visible in their utterances, to serve Justice! This was in sharp contrast to the situation in the courts on a normal day; prosecutors seeking to put accused behind bars while counsel for defendant try to get accused acquitted.

The look on the faces of the 11 who ended up being acquitted and discharged left me with no doubt that justice had been served till I over heard three others whose application had been denied engage in conversation. They were clearly dissatisfied; they felt they had been treated unfairly.

I wasn’t moved entirely, like a colleague once told me, “all prisoners claim they are in prison because of false accusations”. Such anecdote doesn’t provide one with the yardstick to entirely dismiss the assertions made by the three but it is at least a reminder that acts that are executed with the intention of helping others must be done in a manner that leaves one with little reason to cry foul.

Their conversation set me thinking beyond the facts of the day, providing the perfect ambience for the Socratic method of knowledge acquisition that enables one to know that what we think we know may be what we don’t know, while what we don’t know may be what we know.

38 prisoners had their application for bail denied while the court denied jurisdiction in three instances. One thing I observed was the absence of officers from the criminal investigations department. A situation, chairman of the Remand review taskforce Justice Clemence Honyenuga describes as unfortunate. This he added affects the court in its work.

“Its unfortunate that some of them didn’t come, sufficient notices were given to them, they are valuable, they give us information about the cases, when they are absent, it disturbs the court.”

It is worthwhile for subsequent hearings under the program to be held with the investigators handling the individual cases of the prisoners present. The program must consider this as important as having the Justices present lest the name of the program be changed to one devoid of the word “Justice”.

For a good number of the cases, It was evident the State Attorneys didn’t have enough information about the prisoners; they often exited the premises and spoke to the investigators via the phones before trial could proceed. In some instances prisoners were declined bail due to uncertainty about the facts of the case on the face of the docket.

Officers of the Investigations department must attach seriousness to this process. They must understand that a good number of the prisoners are being heard under the program often due to negligence either on their part or that of the Attorney General’s department and in some cases the Justices.

The program must not be reduced to one that seeks to let people off the hook without due diligence. Justice must be served for all; those who must genuinely be allowed to leave must be allowed to leave, while those who must remain in custody or better still be sentenced, duly sentenced.