The Constitution of Ghana, unlike those of other African countries such as Zimbabwe, Kenya, and South Africa is silent on the issue of the admissibility of evidence obtained through human rights violations. Jurisprudence from Ghana demonstrates that although there had been cases in which the High Court and the Court of Appeal briefly dealt with this type of evidence, the Supreme Court, the highest court in Ghana, had not expressed an opinion on this issue until recently. In February 2018, in the case of Cubagee v Asare and Others, the Supreme Court laid down the criteria that Ghanaian courts have to use in determining the admissibility of evidence obtained through human rights violations. In this article, the author argues that much as this is an important decision, the Supreme Court left some issues unresolved and there is still room for improvement.

加纳《宪法》与津巴布韦，肯尼亚和南非等其他非洲国家的宪法不同，对通过侵犯人权获得的证据的可采性问题保持沉默。加纳的判例表明，尽管在某些情况下，高等法院和上诉法院曾短暂地处理过这类证据，但加纳最高法院最高法院直到最近才对这一问题发表意见。2018年2月，在Cubagee诉Asare及其他人一案中，最高法院规定了加纳法院在确定可否受理因侵犯人权而获得的证据时必须使用的标准。在本文中，作者认为，尽管这是一个重要的决定，但最高法院仍未解决一些问题，仍有改进的余地。