Stop Raiding Schools. Start Investing in Young People

Every few months, Ghanaians are treated to dramatic images of students being rounded up, searched, arrested, and publicly exposed in the name of the war on drugs. The latest school raids by the Narcotics Control Commission (NACOC) may generate headlines and social media applause, but they raise a troubling question: Are we solving the problem or simply performing enforcement for public consumption?

If the objective is reducing drug use among young people, the evidence is overwhelming: raids, arrests, and criminalisation do not work. For more than fifty years, countries around the world have waged a costly war on drugs. Trillions have been spent on enforcement. Millions have been arrested. Yet drugs remain available, drug markets continue to thrive, and new psychoactive substances emerge faster than authorities can ban them. If punitive crackdowns were the solution, the world would have won this war long ago.

Instead, what these policies have often produced is a cycle of stigma, exclusion, and wasted human potential.

When a student is arrested during a school raid, what happens next? They may face suspension or expulsion. They may carry the stigma of being labelled a criminal. Their education is disrupted. Their mental health deteriorates. Future job opportunities become limited. In many cases, the very intervention supposedly designed to "save" them ends up pushing them further into isolation and vulnerability.

That is not prevention. That is a policy failure.

Young people who use drugs are not the masterminds of Ghana's drug trade. They are often adolescents navigating peer pressure, trauma, mental health challenges, family instability, academic stress, and social exclusion. Treating them as criminals does nothing to address these underlying realities.

The more worrying question is this: Why is the young population in our schools becoming the face of NACOC's enforcement efforts while the major traffickers and organised criminal networks that fuel the drug trade remain largely out of public view?

It is far easier to stage a raid in a school than to dismantle sophisticated trafficking networks, follow money trails, prosecute drug barons, and disrupt organised crime. One generates headlines; the other delivers real results.

If Ghana is truly concerned about youth drug use, we should pay attention to what works. Iceland once had some of the highest rates of substance use among adolescents in Europe. Rather than criminalising teenagers, the country invested in after-school programs, sports, music, arts, family engagement, and youth development initiatives. Parents were encouraged to spend more time with their children. Communities created safe recreational spaces. Schools became active partners in prevention. The result was a dramatic decline in adolescent substance use over time.

Many universities worldwide have adopted student wellness centers that offer confidential counselling, peer support, mental health services, addiction support, and treatment referrals. Students are encouraged to seek help before problems escalate, not forced into hiding by fear of punishment.

Research consistently demonstrates that young people are less likely to engage in harmful substance use when they feel connected to their families, supported by their schools, engaged in meaningful activities, and able to access mental health services without stigma.

That is why Ghana should be investing in the following:

1. School-based counselling and psychological support services.
2. University wellness and recovery centres and harm reduction services 
3. Peer mentorship and peer-support programs.
4. Comprehensive drug education based on facts rather than fear.
5. Family support and parenting programs.
6. Sports, arts, leadership, and entrepreneurship initiatives for young people.
7. Diversion programs that refer young offenders to counselling and support instead of criminal prosecution.

Parents and communities must also become active partners in prevention. Drug use cannot be addressed through law enforcement alone. Families need the tools to identify early warning signs. Schools need stronger engagement with parents. Religious institutions, traditional leaders, youth groups, and civil society organisations should be helping to create supportive environments where young people can thrive.

The reality is simple! We cannot arrest our way out of youth drug use.

Raiding schools may create the appearance of action. It may produce dramatic photographs and reassuring headlines. But appearance is not impact. Public spectacle is not public policy. The true measure of success is not how many students are arrested. It is how many students are prevented from using drugs, how many receive support when they need it, and how many are allowed to build productive lives.

Our schools should be places of learning, growth, guidance, and second chances, not stages for performative displays of enforcement. The future leaders of Ghana are sitting in those classrooms today. If our response to their vulnerabilities is handcuffs and criminal records, we are not protecting them; we are failing them.

And no amount of showmanship can disguise that reality!

I conclude with the words of former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan: "Drugs have destroyed lives, but bad government policies have destroyed many more lives." As we mark Support. Don't Punish. Day, may these words challenge us to rethink our drug policies, moving away from punishment and toward approaches grounded in health, human rights, dignity, and evidence. Let us choose policies that save lives rather than destroy them. Support Don’t Punish ! Care not Handcuffs!

By Maria-Goretti Ane -Loglo Esq

Health law, Drug Policy  and harm reduction advocate 

When an institution changes the rules after the game has started: The Legal Problem with Retrospective Administrative Directives in Ghana

Here is a question I often return to because it sits at the heart of fairness in public life: what happens when an institution changes the rules after people have already acted under the old ones?

In recent times, concerns have been raised in different academic spaces about universities issuing new administrative directives, sometimes on graduation requirements and sometimes on promotion criteria, and applying them retrospectively to students or staff who were already well into their programs.

At first glance, it may look like a simple administrative adjustment. But legally, it is far more serious than that.

In Ghana, the starting point is the Constitution itself. Article 23 requires that administrative bodies, including public universities, must act fairly, reasonably, and within the law. That single requirement carries significant weight in our legal system.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Awuni v. West African Examinations Council is often the clearest illustration of what fairness means in practice. WAEC cancelled students’ results without giving them a chance to be heard. The Court intervened decisively, holding that such action violated Article 23 and the principles of natural justice.

The message from that case is simple but powerful: when a public decision affects someone’s rights or future, fairness is not optional; it is mandatory.

Now apply that principle to a university context. A student enters a program under clearly published academic regulations. Those regulations are not informal suggestions; they are the legal and administrative framework that governs the student’s academic life.

If, halfway through that journey, the university increases graduation requirements and applies them to those already enrolled, the legal issue is not just administrative inconvenience. It becomes a question of constitutional fairness.

Another important doctrine comes into play here: legitimate expectation. This principle, developed in cases such as the UK’s GCHQ case and ex parte Coughlan, protects individuals who have relied on clear rules or consistent administrative practice by public authorities.

Put simply, if a university tells you through published regulations that 120 credits are required to graduate, you are entitled to organise your academic life around that standard. Changing it retrospectively disrupts more than planning; it undermines trust in public administration.

Ghanaian courts have also consistently affirmed that administrative action is not beyond scrutiny. 

In Republic v SSNIT & Attorney-General, Ex parte Ernest Thompson, the Supreme Court clarified that administrative decisions are subject to judicial review where they violate fairness, legality, or reasonableness. More recently, in Republic v Bank of Ghana, Ex parte Hoda Holdings Ltd. (2024), the Court reaffirmed Article 23 as the constitutional anchor for the review of administrative fairness.

Taken together, these decisions reinforce a consistent principle: public institutions must exercise power within constitutional limits, and fairness is one of those limits.

It is important to stress that universities are not prevented from changing rules. Academic standards evolve, and institutions must retain the ability to improve them. The legal concern arises not from change itself but from retroactive application without fairness, consultation, or transitional protection.

The courts generally recognise that individuals acquire certain expectations once they enter a program or employment structure. These expectations do not make institutions powerless, but they do require that changes be implemented in a manner that does not arbitrarily disadvantage those who relied on existing rules.

In legal terms, this is where concepts such as procedural impropriety, irrationality, and legitimate expectation come together. Where a retrospective directive disrupts vested academic progress without clear justification or transitional arrangements, it becomes vulnerable to legal challenge.

What remedies exist in such situations? Ghanaian law provides a robust framework through judicial review in the High Court. Affected persons may seek:

1. Certiorari, to quash the decision 

2. Declaration that the directive is unlawful or unconstitutional 

3. Prohibition, to stop enforcement 

4. Mandamus, to compel proper application of the original rules 

5. And in appropriate cases, damages for loss suffered 

These are not technical legal luxuries. They are safeguards designed to ensure that public institutions remain accountable to the people they serve.

Ultimately, this issue goes beyond universities. It speaks to a deeper principle of governance: predictability is part of justice. People must be able to arrange their lives based on rules that are stable, known, and fairly applied.

When institutions change the rules after the game has started, they risk more than legal challenge. They risk eroding the trust that makes public systems work in the first place.

And in a constitutional democracy like ours, that is not a small matter.

Fairness is not only a legal requirement; it is a public promise.

A Law at War With Itself: How Ghana's Drug Policy is Failing its Public Health Mission

When Ghana's Narcotics Control Commission Act (Act 1019) was passed in 2020, it was celebrated as a landmark piece of legislation. It promised a revolution in drug policy—a shift from the handcuffs of the past to the healing hands of public health. Yet, approaching six years later, a fundamental paradox lies at its core. While the law speaks the language of rehabilitation, its heart still beats with the pulse of prohibition.

The Act’s stated goals are progressive: to establish a dedicated rehabilitation fund and prioritize treatment and harm reduction over pure enforcement for low-level drug offences. But by attempting to be both a healer and a jailer, Act 1019 has created a legal paradox that traps the very people it claims to rescue. The Act's punitive core remains firmly in place, creating a framework that is fundamentally at odds with its own health-focused mission.

The preliminary findings of the 2025 Integrated Bio-Behavioral Survey (IBBS) provide stark evidence that "draconian" practices persist and are costing lives. It is a law in conflict with itself, and the most vulnerable are paying the price. As the distinguished drug policy scholar Dr. Joanne Csete observed, "Plainly, there is a chasm into which policies fall on the way from the rhetoric to the reality”. 

Four Surprising Realities of Ghana's Drug Law Reform:

1) A 'Public Health' Law That Criminalizes Patients

The fundamental contradiction within Act 1019 is that it attempts to walk in two opposite directions at once. The law mandates a public health approach while simultaneously criminalizing the health condition it is supposed to treat. According to section 3(i) of the Act requires the Narcotics Control Commission to "ensure that substance use disorders are treated as a public health issue. However, section Sections 41, and 45 of the same Act explicitly criminalize the personal possession and purchase of drugs.

This internal conflict forces the law to prosecute the exact individuals it seeks to help. Instead of establishing a "user-as-patient" paradigm, it reinforces the old "user-as-criminal" model, actively deterring people from seeking the very services the law supposedly supports.

2. The Human Cost of Flawed Legislation: Evidence from the Front Lines

The legal paradoxes of Act 1019 are not theoretical. They have failed to address a public health crisis with devastating real-world consequences, as revealed by data from the front lines. The 2025 IBBS, conducted by the University of Ghana School of Public Health, paints a stark picture of a health emergency among people who use drugs:

• HIV Prevalence: HIV rates among people who inject drugs have skyrocketed to 12.5%, compared to just 2% in the general population.

• Hepatitis C prevalence among people who inject drugs in certain regions is an alarming 12.7%.

• It is estimated that over 45% of people who use and inject  drugs are battling moderate to severe depression.

These statistics are a direct consequence of fear. Nearly 50% of surveyed individuals reported being harassed or arrested by uniformed officers in the last six months. This constant threat drives people underground, away from sterile needles, HIV testing and other life-saving services. The result is a hidden epidemic: it is also estimated that only 27.7% of HIV-positive people who use drugs are aware of their status. We cannot treat what we cannot find.

3) When Legal Ambiguity Becomes a 10-Year Sentence

A critical failure of Act 1019 is its refusal to define clear, quantified thresholds that distinguish personal use from trafficking. The law’s definition is dangerously vague, stating that possession for personal use is a quantity that does not exceed what "can reasonably be used by an individual in a day" (Section 113).

This ambiguity grants arresting officers’ immense discretion to decide whether an individual is a patient or a felon facing a mandatory minimum 10-year prison sentence. This creates fertile ground for inequity and corruption, as police can reportedly charge individuals with the more serious offense of supply if they refuse to pay a solicited bribe.

The devastating result of this legal grey area is not theoretical. During a focus group discussion in a study conducted in 2023,  one judge recounted being forced by the law to sentence a young woman to 10 years in prison. Her crime was sending a small amount of a drug to her boyfriend hidden inside a meal of waakye. What was a simple act of personal connection was twisted by a poorly written law into a life-changing prison sentence.

4) The 'Alternative' to Jail Is a Fine Too High to Pay

Act 1019 was praised for introducing non-custodial sentences, but the exorbitant fines render this alternative an illusion for most. However, the fine for possession for personal use is between GHS 2,400 and GHS 6,000. These figures are staggering when contextualized against the average monthly salary in Ghana of around GHS 3,700. If an individual cannot pay, they face imprisonment. By international standards, these penalties are exceptionally punitive: in Switzerland, for example, possessing a small amount of cannabis results in a simple administrative fine of ........ 

As one official from the Narcotics Control Commission (NACOC) bluntly stated, "The users liable to pay fines for use aren’t usually in a position to pay... It’s the poorer people who have no choice but to smoke in the slums, in the streets, and so on who get caught." The system has merely created a different pathway to imprisonment for the poor. 

5) A Flawed Path to Wellness: Punishment Before Treatment

The law's approach to rehabilitation contains a critical timing flaw. Under Section 45(5), the offer of treatment comes only after an individual has been prosecuted and convicted. A genuine public health model diverts people into the healthcare system instead of the criminal justice system, preventing the lifelong stigma of a criminal record. The current Ghanaian model is "punishment followed by an offer of treatment." It brands individuals as criminals first, creating immense barriers to future employment, education, and housing long after their sentence is served.

The Way Forward: Urgent Amendments to Save Lives:

To meet global goals to reduce draconian laws and stigma, Ghana must move beyond paper reforms. The following amendments are urgently needed to turn policy into life-saving practice, We need to:

1. Define the thresholds and fully decriminalize drug use: Parliament must urgently amend Sections 37, 41, and 45 of Act 1019 to specify drug quantities that distinguish personal use from trafficking. The ultimate goal should be the full decriminalization of possession and purchase for personal use; an approach aligned with recommendations from the the West African Commission on Drugs,  the whole United Nations system,  and the International Drug Policy Consortium,  among many others. Personal use should not be an offense at all.

2. Rethink sentencing: The passage of the Non-Custodial Sentencing Bill is critical to provide genuine alternatives to incarceration for petty offenses. This will reduce prison congestion, save national resources, and allow the justice system to focus on serious crime.

3. Protect and expand harm reduction services: The law must be clarified to legally protect the distribution of medical supplies like sterile syringes and naloxone. These are not "drug tools"; they are life-saving medical supplies essential to preventing overdose deaths and the spread of disease.

4. Sensitize agencies: Law enforcement and security agencies require mandatory training to view people who use drugs as patients in need of referral to health services, not as criminals to be arrested.

Conclusion:

Ghana's Narcotics Control Commission Act 2020 is a law in conflict with itself. It was adopted as a result of progressive, health-oriented aspirations but these are being undermined by a punitive legal core that continues to criminalise and punish the very people it seeks to help.

The 2025 IBBS data are more than just numbers; they are a mirror reflecting a public health crisis fueled by our own draconian laws. Ghana took a courageous first step with Act 1019, signaling an intent to treat drug use as a health issue. But now, it must complete the journey.

By amending the law to prioritize health and compassion, Ghana can create a coherent and effective drug policy one that saves lives by supporting its most vulnerable citizens and focuses its law enforcement resources on the organized crime that poses a true threat to public safety.

By: Maria-Goretti Ane- Loglo Esq, Africa Consultant for the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), and a lawyer, health and ethics advocate, and drug policy analyst from Accra, Ghana. Contact: mloglo@idpc.net