Sixty-five(65) years after its passage, Ghana’s Coroners Act, 1960 (Act 18), stands as one of the country’s oldest surviving legal instruments from the immediate post-independence period.

Enacted and assented to on December 15, 1960, to consolidate and amend the law on coroners, the Act was inherited almost wholesale from the British colonial legal tradition and has remained largely untouched ever since.

Its longevity is often cited as evidence of stability. Despite this historical “stability,” the Act’s archaic statutory basis—drafted long before modern forensic science, contemporary human rights law, and today’s expectations of transparency—means that Act 18 provides no detailed standards for forensic autopsies, family participation, public reporting, auditing of death certification processes, or systemic learning from deaths.

In practice, this stability has masked deep structural weaknesses that now demand urgent reform.

The coroner

The word "coroner" comes from the Anglo-Norman “corouner,” derived from “coroune” (crown), and dates from the 12th century.

"Corouner" was the term used for the royal judicial officer, called in Latin "custos placitorum coronae," or “guardian of the crown’s pleas.”

The role evolved from safeguarding the King’s revenue by investigating deaths, treasure troves, and shipwrecks, to ensuring that crimes against the Crown were properly handled.

Over time, this function came to focus primarily on investigating certain categories of death.

Today, the coroner is a public official, appointed or elected within a particular geographic jurisdiction, whose official duty is to investigate sudden, unexpected, and violent deaths, determine the cause of death, issue death certificates, and potentially hold inquests where deaths are deemed unnatural.

Ghana’s Coroners Act of 1960 (Act 18): Gaps—What Exists and What Is Missing.

At its core, Act 18 establishes a magistrate-based coronial system.

Every District Magistrate is designated a coroner, with powers to order investigations, post-mortem examinations, and inquests into deaths that are violent, unnatural, of unknown cause, or occurring in custody—whether in a prison, lock-up, lunatic asylum, or public institution other than a hospital.

Additionally, “the person in charge of any hospital in which a person has died an unnatural death shall forthwith give notice thereof to the Coroner for the district.”

Failures within this framework depend largely on the fact that death certification and coronial processes are distinct.

The coroner has no information on, or responsibility for, deaths that are not reported to him or her.

No public authority is required to ensure that certification processes are properly carried out or that deaths which ought to be investigated by the coroner are reported.

There is thus little to prevent an unscrupulous practitioner from certifying his or her way out of trouble, whether negligently or for a fee—a practice reportedly occurring in some facilities across the country.

These failures are magnified by the lack of supervisory structures within the coronial service and, therefore, the absence of leadership, accountability, and quality assurance.

There is no formal linkage to other public health services and systems.

On paper, these provisions appear robust.

In reality, the system they support is fragmented, uneven, subject to bureaucratic delays, and poorly understood by many of those required to operate it.

One of the central challenges is that the "Act" reflects assumptions of a colonial administrative state that no longer exist.

The coroner is not a specialised, independent office but an additional function assigned to already overburdened magistrates.

There is no national coronial service, no unified leadership, and no dedicated supervisory or inspection structure to ensure consistency across districts.

As a result, coronial processes vary widely in quality, depth, and timeliness, depending largely on local capacity and individual discretion.

This variability undermines public confidence and weakens the Act’s effectiveness as a safeguard for the right to life.

Equally troubling is the Act’s archaic statutory basis.

Drafted long before modern forensic science, contemporary human rights law, and today’s expectations of transparency, "Act 18" provides no detailed standards for forensic autopsies, appropriate allowances and fees for coronial teams, family participation, public reporting, or systemic learning from deaths.

While it allows coroners to make general recommendations, there is no mechanism to track, enforce, or review whether such recommendations result in meaningful change.

Death investigations risk becoming procedural endpoints rather than catalysts for prevention and accountability.

What England and Wales Did—and Why It Matters for Ghana Decades of criticism in England and Wales followed high-profile deaths, miscarriages of justice, and findings of non-compliance with human rights obligations in cases such as:

The Harold Shipman Murders: Shipman, a trusted general practitioner, was convicted in the year 2000 of murdering 15 elderly female patients with lethal doses of diamorphine.

A subsequent public inquiry concluded that he was likely responsible for at least 215, and possibly up to 250, murders between 1971 and 1998.

He went undetected for so long due to a culture of trust in doctors and poor death certification procedures.

The Allitt Inquiry: Beverley Allitt, a paediatric nurse, attacked 13 children while working on a children’s ward at Grantham and Kesteven Hospital in 1991, murdering four and causing grievous bodily harm to others through methods such as injecting air or insulin.

Her actions were attributed to Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

The Marchioness (Bowbelle) Disaster and the Bristol and Alder Hey Inquiries:

These revealed instances where body parts were removed during post-mortem examinations without proper consent from bereaved families.

The contrast with developments in England and Wales is instructive.

Unlike Ghana, coronial legislation in the UK evolved through successive reforms—from the County Coroners Act 1860 and the Coroners Act 1887, to the Coroners Act 1980, consolidation in the Coroners Act 1988, and ultimately the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, supported by the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013 and the Coroners (Inquest) Rules 2013.

The 2009 Act fundamentally reshaped the system by introducing a Chief Coroner and Deputies, Medical Examiners, etc., to provide national leadership, training, and oversight; strengthening investigative standards; improving the rights of bereaved families; and embedding the prevention of future deaths as a core function of inquests.

These reforms were driven by a clear recognition that historical continuity is not a virtue when it comes at the expense of effectiveness, consistency, and public trust. Ghana now faces a similar reckoning.

Conclusion: Ghana’s Death Investigations—Urgent Reform within a National Forensic Authority

Framework

At 65 years, Ghana’s Coroners Act of 1960 (Act 18) is no longer merely old; it is out of step with the realities it is meant to govern.

Deaths in custody, police operations, healthcare settings, and public spaces increasingly raise complex forensic, legal, and ethical questions.

Reform is not a repudiation of Ghana’s legal heritage but an affirmation of its constitutional and moral commitment to accountability and the dignity of human life.

As England and Wales have shown, reforming a coronial system is neither simple nor cosmetic.

It requires political will, legislative clarity, investment in forensic capacity, and a shift from viewing death investigation as a narrow procedural task to recognising it as a cornerstone of justice and public confidence.

The establishment of a National Forensic Authority, including an Office of the State Forensic Pathologist, would provide the necessary regulatory framework and oversight for forensic practice, while ensuring continuous capacity building and professional standards for medical examiners, forensic physicians, pathologists, and coroners to discharge their duties effectively.

Sixty-five (65) years on, the question is no longer whether Ghana’s Coroners Act has endured, but whether it can continue to do so without fundamental renewal.