Sociology of Human Rights Violations: A Comparative Analysis of State-Sponsored Violence in Ghana and the United Kingdom

Joseph Ampadu

Independent Researcher | Ghana

Correspondence: Jampadu666@gmail.com

INDEXED & DISCOVERABLE IN

Google Scholar · Scopus · Web of Science · EBSCO · DOAJ · AJOL · CrossRef DOI

PubMed · Dimensions · CABI · JSTOR · SciELO · OpenAIRE · Researcher · AfricaBib

Journal website: https://parj.africa/ajls_hrl/index

Keywords: State-sponsored violence · Human rights · Violations · Accountability · Ghana · United Kingdom

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20544821

Abstract

State-sponsored violence remains a persistent challenge to human rights protection in both developing and developed democracies. While existing research has largely focused on single-country analyses or legalistic treaty-compliance approaches, comparative sociological studies examining how historical trajectories, institutional practices, and accountability mechanisms shape state violence across different political contexts remain limited. This study addresses this gap by undertaking a comparative analysis of state-sponsored violence in Ghana and the United Kingdom. The study adopted a qualitative comparative case study design. A purposive sample of 22 participants was drawn from Ghana (n=12) and the United Kingdom (n=10), including human rights activists, legal practitioners, journalists, academics, security experts, policing scholars, community organisers, and civil liberty representatives. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews, and thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo software version 16. Key findings revealed that in Ghana, state violence is direct, forceful, and politically visible manifesting as tear gas, live ammunition, and rough arrests during elections and protests while in the United Kingdom violence is institutionalised and less visible, operating through surveillance, stop-and-search practices, and discretionary policing that disproportionately affects minority communities. Political influence shapes security behaviour in both contexts: directly in Ghana through government interests during political tensions, and indirectly in the United Kingdom through policy frameworks and security strategies, yet both forms remain legible to citizens. Accountability systems in both countries frustrate citizens because outcomes are slow, invisible, and rarely lead to meaningful consequences, challenging the assumption that developed democracies have resolved the accountability problem. The study concludes that while the forms of state-sponsored violence differ, the underlying problems of political influence, accountability failures, inconsistent application of laws, and historical institutional continuity are common to both countries. Legal compliance does not equate to perceived legitimacy, and the gap between Ghana and the United Kingdom in citizen frustration with state violence may be smaller than previously assumed. One key recommendation is that oversight bodies in both countries, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice in Ghana and the Independent Office for Police Conduct in the United Kingdom should improve the transparency and visibility of investigation outcomes, as the invisibility of results erodes public trust more than procedural delays alone.

1. INTRODUCTION

The protection of human rights has become a defining feature of modern governance, yet the persistence of violations, particularly those carried out or sanctioned by the state, continues to challenge this ideal ( (authors et al., 2015); (Tanabe et al., 2005)). Human rights are widely recognised as universal entitlements inherent to all individuals, as articulated in instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which places clear obligations on states to respect, protect, and fulfil these rights ( (Author, 1951); (Greenwood & Freeman, 2017)). Despite this normative commitment, the state frequently emerges as a principal agent of violation, revealing a fundamental contradiction at the heart of contemporary political systems ( (Porter, 1986); (Davenport, 2010)). This contradiction is evident in documented instances of state-sponsored violence across both developing and developed contexts. In Ghana, events such as the Ayawaso West Wuogon by-election violence and the Techiman South election violence have been associated with the use of excessive force by security personnel against civilians, raising concerns about accountability, politicisation of security institutions, and weak enforcement of human rights protections (Bob-Milliar, 2014; CHRAJ, 2025). In the United Kingdom, cases such as the police shooting of Mark Duggan and longstanding concerns regarding disproportionate stop-and-search practices demonstrate more institutionalised, yet persistent, forms of state violence, particularly affecting minority populations ( (Bowling & Phillips, 2007); (Spronken, 2010)). From a sociological perspective, these incidents are not isolated but are embedded within broader systems of power, governance, and social control, where the state exercises coercion in ways that may be normalised or justified within institutional frameworks ( (White, 1977); (Goldthorpe & Galtung, 1969)). In postcolonial settings such as Ghana, historical legacies of colonial administration and periods of military governance continue to influence contemporary policing practices and state-society relations, often reinforcing coercive approaches to maintaining order (Ake, 1996; Hutchful, 2002). Conversely, in developed democratic contexts such as the United Kingdom, state-sponsored violence tends to be more regulated and less overt, operating through legal frameworks, surveillance mechanisms, and bureaucratic procedures that can obscure its impact while maintaining social control ( (Pesaran, 2007); (Lynch, 2002)). Notwithstanding the growing body of literature on human rights and state violence, existing studies remain largely fragmented, often focusing on single-country analyses or adopting normative legal approaches (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998; Sikkink, 2011; Hafner-Burton & Tsutsui, 2005; Stark, 1991; Nowak, 2003) that emphasise formal compliance rather than the underlying sociological processes shaping state behaviour ( (Tanabe et al., 2005); (Cózar et al., 2014)). There is a notable gap in comparative research that systematically examines how historical trajectories, institutional capacities, and accountability mechanisms interact across both developing and developed contexts to influence the manifestation of state-sponsored violence. This study addresses this gap by undertaking a comparative sociological analysis of Ghana as a developing nation and the United Kingdom as a developed nation, thereby providing a cross-contextual understanding of how differing levels of political and institutional development shape the forms, visibility, and regulation of state violence ( (Holthausen & Watts, 2000); (Vuković, 2012)). Therefore, this study aims to: ( (authors et al., 2015)) examine the nature, patterns, and forms of state-sponsored violence in Ghana and the United Kingdom within a human rights framework and; ( (Tanabe et al., 2005)) analyse the sociopolitical and institutional factors that shape the occurrence and expression of state-sponsored violence in both countries. In doing so, the study contributes to the literature by moving beyond descriptive and legalistic accounts to offer a more nuanced and theoretically grounded explanation of how state power is exercised, legitimised, and contested across contrasting governance systems, thereby enriching broader debates on human rights, state legitimacy, and the dynamics of violence in contemporary societies.

2. LITETRTAURE REVIEW

2.1 Human Rights and State-Sponsored Violence

Human rights are widely understood as universal entitlements grounded in legal, moral, and political traditions, requiring states to respect, protect, and fulfil the dignity and freedoms of individuals, as reflected in instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( (Author, 1951); (Marsden & Campbell, 2012); (O’Neill & Wall, 1987)). While the legal dimension frames human rights as enforceable obligations, their moral and political dimensions position them as standards through which state authority is judged and contested ( (authors et al., 2015); (Klein et al., 2010)). Within this context, state-sponsored violence refers to the use of force or coercion by state institutions in ways that undermine these rights, ranging from direct acts such as police brutality and unlawful detention to more embedded forms of harm within institutional practices ( (Davenport, 2010); (Tilly, 2003)). A critical distinction in the literature is between overt violence, which is visible and episodic, and structural or institutional violence, which operates through enduring social arrangements that systematically disadvantage certain groups. The concept of structural violence, developed by Johan Galtung, shifts attention from individual acts to the ways in which inequality and harm are built into social and political systems ( (Goldthorpe & Galtung, 1969)). This perspective is further reinforced by scholarship that highlights how modern states exercise power not only through direct coercion but also through routine administrative and policy processes that can normalise exclusion and inequality ( (Farmer et al., 2006); (White, 1977)). Conceptualising human rights and state-sponsored violence in this broader sense is essential, as it allows for a more comprehensive analysis of how states may simultaneously uphold legal commitments while reproducing conditions that undermine rights in practice.

2.2 State-sponsored violence in Ghana

State-sponsored violence in Ghana is not rare or accidental. It appears in moments of political tension and in routine security operations, often revealing how state power is exercised rather than a few isolated mistakes. (Tankebe, 2008) shows that public trust in the Ghana Police Service is weakened by perceptions of excessive force and weak accountability, while (Clear, 2007) traces these patterns to colonial policing systems designed for control rather than citizen protection. These legacies extend beyond the police to include the military and other security agencies, which have at times been deployed in ways that blur the line between security enforcement and coercion. This is evident in the Ayawaso West Wuogon by-election violence, where armed national security operatives, including military-linked personnel, assaulted civilians and journalists, raising concerns about the political use of force ( (Bediako et al., 2025)). A similar incidence emerged during the Techiman South election violence, where security forces, including military personnel, opened fire during electoral disturbances, leading to civilian deaths and highlighting the use of lethal force in managing political conflict ( (Mensah, 2021)).

Beyond electoral contexts, everyday encounters with security forces also reveal patterns of violence. The killing of Albert Donkor in police custody exposed the routine use of force during arrest and detention and raised questions about institutional accountability ( (Botchwey & Cunninghama, 2025)). In another widely reported case, the Ejura disturbances involved military personnel firing on protesters following unrest, resulting in multiple civilian deaths and injuries, which underscored the militarised response to civil protest ( (Karim, 2021)). Similarly, the state’s response to the FixTheCountry protests included preventive arrests and restrictions on assembly, demonstrating how both legal and coercive measures are used to manage dissent (Clottey, 2021). These examples show that state-sponsored violence in Ghana involves not only the police but also the military and other security actors, particularly in situations linked to elections, protests, and public order. They support the argument by (Gillespie, 2015) that policing and security enforcement are often tied to political processes, especially during elections, which weakens institutional neutrality. At the same time, oversight bodies such as the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice continue to face challenges in enforcing accountability, as investigations do not always result in sanctions (CHRAJ, 2025; (Tankebe, 2008)).

2.3 State-Sponsored Violence in the United Kingdom

State-sponsored violence in the United Kingdom is rarely expressed through overt, large-scale repression but is often embedded within routine systems of policing, surveillance, and security governance that produce unequal outcomes while remaining formally lawful ( (Lynch, 2002); (Pesaran, 2007)). One of the most widely documented areas is the use of stop-and-search powers, which have consistently been associated with racial disparities in enforcement. Studies by (Bowling & Phillips, 2007) demonstrate that these practices reflect institutional patterns rather than isolated bias, while official data from the Equality and Human Rights Commission show that Black individuals are significantly more likely to be stopped and searched than white individuals, raising concerns about systemic discrimination and the normalisation of coercive encounters ( (Spronken, 2010); Home Office, 2021). Beyond everyday policing, the expansion of surveillance and counter-terrorism frameworks has further reshaped how state power is exercised. Legislative and policy measures introduced in response to terrorism have enabled extensive monitoring and intelligence gathering, particularly affecting Muslim communities and other minority groups ( (Roelen et al., 2009); (Bojanowski et al., 2017)). Scholars argue that these practices reflect a broader shift toward preventive governance, where the state manages perceived risks through surveillance and control mechanisms that may compromise civil liberties ( (Lynch, 2002); Lyon, 2007). The Equality and Human Rights Commission and other oversight bodies have also raised concerns about the disproportionate social impact of such measures, particularly in relation to privacy, freedom of expression, and community relations ( (Spronken, 2010)). At the institutional level, policing in the United Kingdom is governed by formal procedures and oversight mechanisms, yet concerns about the use of force and accountability persist. The case of Mark Duggan, whose fatal shooting by officers of the Metropolitan Police Service triggered widespread unrest, illustrates the tensions between official narratives of lawful force and public perceptions of injustice ( (Schomberg, 2011); (Newburn et al., 2016)). Although investigations concluded that the shooting was lawful, the incident intensified debates about racial bias, police legitimacy, and the adequacy of accountability mechanisms (Newburn, 2015; (Bowling & Phillips, 2007)). This suggests that in developed democratic settings, state violence is not absent but transformed, becoming more regulated, bureaucratic, and diffuse, yet still significant in its implications for human rights and social inequality ( (Lynch, 2002); (Pesaran, 2007)).

2.4 Comparative and Cross-National Studies on Human Rights

Comparative research on human rights has expanded significantly over the past two decades, with scholars increasingly seeking to explain variation in rights protection across countries using large-N datasets, global indices, and treaty compliance measures. Works such as Cingranelli and Richards’ Human Rights Data Project and Fariss’ dynamic human rights measurement approach have been widely used to assess patterns of repression, physical integrity rights, and state behaviour across different political systems ( (Dreher et al., 2011); (Zhao et al., 2015)). These approaches are complemented by studies that rely on international treaty ratification as indicators of commitment to human rights norms, arguing that formal adoption reflects a state’s willingness to comply with global standards ( (Hathaway, 2003); (Simmons, 2009)). In addition, global governance research has used country rankings and indices to compare human rights performance, often linking better outcomes to stronger institutions, democratic governance, and economic development ( (Tanabe et al., 2005); Poe, Tate, & Keith, 1999). However, despite their usefulness in identifying broad global patterns, these comparative approaches have been widely criticised for reducing countries to statistical units rather than treating them as complex social and institutional systems. As critics argue, index-based studies tend to prioritise measurable indicators of compliance while overlooking the social processes, power relations, and historical conditions that shape how rights are experienced in practice ( (Author, 2014); (Aggarwal et al., 2011)). This limitation is particularly evident in how such studies often treat human rights violations as outcomes to be ranked rather than processes embedded in governance structures, everyday policing practices, and institutional cultures. Another important limitation is that most cross-national studies do not adequately distinguish between developed and developing contexts in a sociological sense. While some research incorporates regime type or income level as explanatory variables, there is limited engagement with how historical trajectories, especially colonial legacies and state formation processes, shape contemporary patterns of state violence in both settings ( (Vuković, 2012); Fukuda-Parr, 2016). As a result, developed democracies and postcolonial states are often analysed within the same quantitative framework, despite significant differences in how state power is organised, legitimised, and exercised.

It is within this gap that this study positions itself. By comparing Ghana and the United Kingdom, the paper moves beyond treating states as data points and instead examines them as social systems shaped by institutional histories, governance practices, and everyday mechanisms of control. This sociological approach allows for a deeper understanding of how state-sponsored violence is produced, sustained, and regulated across different levels of political and institutional development, offering a more grounded explanation than is typically found in index-based or treaty-focused studies.

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study is anchored on a combination of structural violence theory, supported by Foucauldian power and surveillance theory and postcolonial theory.

3.1 Structural Violence Theory

The main theoretical foundation of this study is structural violence theory developed by Johan (Goldthorpe & Galtung, 1969). Galtung argues that violence should not be reduced to direct physical harm alone, but must also include the “avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs” caused by social structures, institutions, and systems of inequality ( (Goldthorpe & Galtung, 1969)). He distinguishes between direct violence, which is visible and intentional (such as killing, assault, or coercion), and structural violence, which is indirect, often invisible, and embedded in the way social, political, and economic systems are organised ( (Goldthorpe & Galtung, 1969); Galtung, 1990). In this sense, violence becomes part of normal institutional functioning rather than exceptional behaviour, meaning that harm can be reproduced without a clearly identifiable perpetrator. Galtung further argues that structural violence operates through unequal access to power, resources, and protection, leading to systematic disadvantage for certain groups over time ( (Goldthorpe & Galtung, 1969); Galtung, 1990). This means that violence is not only an event but also a process embedded in governance structures, law enforcement systems, and social institutions. In later work, (Kehl, 1991) extends this idea by linking structural violence to cultural and institutional mechanisms that legitimise inequality, making it appear normal or justified. In this study, structural violence theory is used as the core analytical lens to explain how state-sponsored violence operates in both Ghana and the United Kingdom. It helps to interpret incidents such as militarised responses to protests or electoral violence in Ghana, as well as institutional practices such as stop-and-search and unequal policing outcomes in the United Kingdom, not as isolated acts but as expressions of deeper structural arrangements. The theory therefore allows the study to move beyond event-based explanations and focus on how state systems produce patterned forms of harm across different political and developmental contexts ( (Goldthorpe & Galtung, 1969); Galtung, 1990).

3.2 Power, Discipline, and Surveillance Theory

This study also draws on the work of Michel (White, 1977), who reconceptualises power as something that is not only held by the state but exercised through everyday institutional practices. In Discipline and Punish, Foucault argues that modern societies have shifted from “sovereign power” (visible punishment and force) to “disciplinary power,” which operates through surveillance, regulation, and normalisation of behaviour ( (White, 1977)). Power, in this sense, becomes productive rather than purely repressive, shaping how individuals behave through constant observation and institutional control. (White, 1977) introduces the idea of the “panopticon” as a metaphor for modern governance, where individuals regulate their own behaviour because they are potentially always being watched. This form of power is embedded in institutions such as the police, schools, prisons, and administrative systems, which categorise, monitor, and discipline populations. In later analyses, scholars have extended Foucault’s work to show how surveillance technologies and risk-based policing have intensified these forms of control in contemporary states ( (Lynch, 2002); Lyon, 2007). In relation to this study, Foucauldian theory is particularly useful for explaining how state power operates in the United Kingdom, where violence is often less visible but embedded in routine institutional practices such as surveillance, stop-and-search, and counter-terror policing. It helps to show how coercion can be exercised through lawful procedures that still produce unequal social outcomes, particularly for minority populations. It also complements the structural violence framework by explaining the mechanisms through which institutional control is maintained in advanced democratic settings ( (White, 1977); (Lynch, 2002)).

3.3 Postcolonial Theory and State Violence

The third theoretical perspective is postcolonial theory, particularly the work of Frantz (Thiéry & Mémery, 1961). Fanon argues that colonial rule is fundamentally violent, not only in its physical domination but also in its psychological and institutional control over colonised societies. In The Wretched of the Earth, he explains that colonial systems are maintained through coercion, and that the end of formal colonial rule does not automatically dismantle these structures of violence ( (Thiéry & Mémery, 1961)). Instead, postcolonial states often inherit coercive institutions and governance practices shaped by colonial administration. Fanon further argues that violence in postcolonial societies is often reproduced through state institutions that continue to rely on coercive authority to maintain order, particularly in contexts where political legitimacy is fragile ( (Thiéry & Mémery, 1961)). This perspective has been widely applied in African studies to explain how colonial policing systems, military governance, and centralised authority structures continue to influence contemporary state behaviour ( (Jinadu, 1996); (Clapham, 1997)). In this study, Fanon’s theory is used primarily to explain the Ghanaian context, where colonial policing legacies and periods of military rule have contributed to a security architecture that sometimes relies on coercive force in managing elections, protests, and public order. It provides historical depth to the analysis by showing how present-day state-sponsored violence is connected to longer trajectories of political domination and institutional continuity ( (Thiéry & Mémery, 1961); (Clapham, 1997)).

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1 Research Approach and Design

This study adopted a qualitative research approach to examine the nature, patterns, and institutional dynamics of state-sponsored violence in Ghana and the United Kingdom. The qualitative approach was considered appropriate because the study focused on understanding experiences, interpretations, institutional practices, and sociopolitical processes rather than numerical measurement or statistical relationships ( (Tarnoki & Puentes, 2019); (Mohajan, 2018)). Qualitative inquiry also enabled an in-depth exploration of how state violence was experienced, justified, and sustained within different political and institutional contexts. The study also employed a comparative case study design focusing on Ghana and the United Kingdom. A comparative case study design was suitable because it allowed for the examination of state-sponsored violence across two contrasting contexts: a developing postcolonial democracy and a developed liberal democracy ( (Griffis et al., 2018)). The design further enabled the identification of similarities, differences, and institutional factors shaping the manifestation of violence in both countries through context-based analysis ( (Saunders et al., 2017)).

4.2 Population, Sample size and Sampling Technique

The study population consisted of individuals and institutions with knowledge and experience relating to human rights, policing, governance, and state-sponsored violence in Ghana and the United Kingdom. The selection of participants was guided by their professional involvement, expertise, and familiarity with issues concerning state power, institutional control, surveillance practices, policing, and human rights protection. In Ghana, the study included six categories of participants: human rights activists, journalists, legal practitioners, academics, civil society representatives, and security and policing experts. Two participants were selected from each category, giving a total of twelve ( (Lynch, 2002)) participants from Ghana. These participants were considered relevant because of their direct engagement with issues relating to governance, law enforcement, political violence, public accountability, and human rights advocacy. In the United Kingdom, the study involved five categories of participants: human rights advocates, policing and surveillance scholars, legal experts, community organisers, and representatives from civil liberty organisations. Similarly, two participants were selected from each category, resulting in a total of ten ( (Goldthorpe & Galtung, 1969)) participants from the United Kingdom. These participants were selected because of their knowledge and professional experience relating to institutional policing practices, surveillance systems, racial disparities, protest regulation, and state accountability mechanisms within the UK context. Overall, the study used a total sample size of twenty-two ( (Clear, 2007)) participants across both countries. The sample size was considered appropriate for a qualitative comparative study because it allowed for detailed exploration of institutional practices, sociopolitical processes, and cross-context experiences relating to state-sponsored violence while ensuring depth of information from participants with specialised expertise ( (Saunders et al., 2017); (Tarnoki & Puentes, 2019)).

The study used purposive sampling ( (Gentles et al., 2015); (Hill et al., 2016); (Wulczyn et al., 2015)) to select participants with direct professional knowledge and practical experience relating to policing, human rights protection, surveillance practices, protest management, and state-sponsored violence in Ghana and the United Kingdom. Participants were identified and selected through their professional affiliations, public advocacy roles, academic contributions, legal practice, and involvement in civil society and governance-related activities. Human rights activists and civil society representatives were selected from recognised advocacy organisations, while academics and policing scholars were identified through their research and publications on policing, surveillance, governance, and human rights issues. Journalists and legal practitioners were selected based on their documented engagement with cases involving police violence, protests, elections, and institutional accountability. This sampling approach enabled the researcher to engage participants who possessed first-hand knowledge and informed perspectives on institutional practices and sociopolitical processes relevant to the study. Purposive sampling was therefore considered appropriate because it allowed for the selection of information-rich participants capable of providing detailed and context-specific insights rather than relying on general population views (Patton, 2015; (Saunders et al., 2017)).

4.3 Research Instrument

The study used semi-structured interviews as the main data collection instrument. An interview guide was developed and divided into two sections to ensure focus and consistency while still allowing participants to share detailed experiences and explanations. Section 1 explored the nature, patterns, and forms of state-sponsored violence in Ghana and the United Kingdom within a human rights framework. Questions in this section focused on real experiences and observations of policing practices, protest management, custodial treatment, and incidents involving state actors, as well as how these actions were understood in relation to human rights standards. Section 2 examined the sociopolitical and institutional factors shaping the occurrence and expression of state-sponsored violence in both countries. This section focused on issues such as political influence on security institutions, accountability systems, legal enforcement practices, surveillance structures, and historical or structural conditions that influence how state power is exercised. The semi-structured format allowed flexibility for participants to elaborate on specific cases and institutional experiences while ensuring that all key themes aligned with the study objectives were consistently covered across interviews ( (Chiasson et al., 2015); (Rubin, 2013); (Baur et al., 2013)).

4.4 Data Collection Method

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with selected participants in both the United Kingdom and Ghana. In the United Kingdom, interviews were conducted primarily through telephone calls and Zoom video conferencing due to scheduling flexibility. Initial contact was made through phone calls and email to introduce the study, confirm participation, and arrange suitable interview times. Once participants agreed, interviews were conducted remotely at pre-arranged times, allowing for in-depth discussions despite physical separation. In Ghana, interviews were conducted using Zoom video conferencing. Participants were first contacted via WhatsApp call to explain the purpose of the study and obtain informed consent. After confirmation, interview sessions were scheduled and conducted through Zoom due to geographical distance and scheduling flexibility. Also these platforms were chosen because they were widely accessible and allowed real-time interaction without requiring physical meetings. Across both contexts, a semi-structured interview guide was used to ensure consistency in the areas covered while allowing participants the flexibility to provide detailed responses based on their experiences and professional knowledge. With permission, all interviews were recorded and later transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy and completeness of the data for analysis.

4.5 Data Analysis

The interview data were analysed using thematic analysis. After each interview in both Ghana and the United Kingdom, recordings were transcribed verbatim and reviewed several times to gain familiarity with the content. The transcripts were then imported into NVivo software version 16, where initial coding was carried out manually within the software environment. Codes were assigned to specific statements relating to policing practices, protest responses, surveillance experiences, institutional accountability, and human rights violations. As coding progressed, similar codes were grouped together to form broader themes that reflected repeated patterns across participants in both countries. These themes captured how state-sponsored violence was described, justified, and experienced within different institutional settings. The analysis was conducted in a comparative manner, allowing similarities and differences between Ghana and the United Kingdom to emerge clearly from the data. Findings were presented using an interpretive approach, supported with direct quotations from participants to ensure that their voices remained central to the analysis. NVivo also assisted in organising data segments and tracking relationships between codes and themes, which improved consistency in interpretation across the dataset.

To ensure trustworthiness, credibility was strengthened by repeatedly going back to the recorded audio and original transcripts during coding in NVivo to confirm that each theme accurately reflected what participants actually said, especially when comparing responses from Ghana and the United Kingdom. Where similar issues appeared across both countries, such as policing conduct during protests or perceptions of accountability, these were checked side-by-side to ensure consistency in interpretation rather than assuming similarity. Dependability was maintained through a step-by-step record within NVivo showing how raw statements were moved from initial codes into broader themes. Each coding decision was documented with notes explaining why certain statements were grouped together, which made it possible to trace how the final themes were developed from the data. Confirmability was ensured by deliberately using participants’ own words as the basis for interpretation. Direct quotations were retained in the analysis and compared against the assigned codes to avoid over-interpretation or personal bias influencing the findings. Transferability was supported by providing clear contextual details of the interview settings in both Ghana and the United Kingdom, including the nature of participants’ professional roles and institutional environments, so that readers can judge how far the findings may apply to other similar sociopolitical contexts ( (Lincoln & Guba, 1985); (Laetsch & Blaxter, 2017)).

4.6 Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval (FMHS-2026-0412) was obtained before the commencement of data collection, and all procedures were guided by standard principles of research ethics. Participants were fully informed about the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, and their right to withdraw at any stage without any consequences. To ensure confidentiality and protect participant identity, all responses were anonymised using coded identifiers instead of real names or institutional affiliations. In Ghana, participants were coded as human rights activists (HRA), journalists (JNLS), legal practitioners (LP), academics (ACS), civil society representatives (CSR), and security and policing experts (SCTY). In the United Kingdom, participants were coded as human rights advocates (HRA-UK), policing and surveillance scholars (PSS-UK), legal experts (LE-UK), community organisers (CO-UK), and representatives from civil liberty organisations (CLO-UK). These codes were used consistently in transcripts, NVivo files, and in the presentation of findings to ensure anonymity. All interview recordings, transcripts, and coded files were stored securely on a password-protected device accessible only to the researcher. Care was taken to avoid any disclosure of sensitive information that could expose participants or their organisations, particularly given the political and institutional sensitivity of state-sponsored violence. Participants were also assured that their contributions would be used strictly for academic purposes and presented in a way that avoids harm, misrepresentation, or identification. This was particularly important given the cross-national nature of the study and the involvement of individuals engaged in human rights advocacy, legal practice, and security-related fields in both Ghana and the United Kingdom.

4.7 Limitations of the Study

The study faced some practical and methodological limitations. Access to certain institutional actors was restricted, particularly within security and governmental circles, which limited the range of official perspectives included. This was managed by engaging alternative knowledgeable participants such as legal practitioners, academics, and human rights professionals who had direct exposure to institutional practices. The sensitivity of discussing state-sponsored violence also affected the depth of some responses, as certain participants were cautious when addressing politically sensitive issues. This was addressed by assuring confidentiality, using anonymous coding, and allowing participants to skip questions they were uncomfortable with. Differences in reporting systems between Ghana and the United Kingdom created challenges in comparing documented cases directly. This was managed by focusing on thematic patterns rather than relying solely on official statistics or identical datasets.

5. RESULTS

5.1 Nature, Patterns and Forms of State-Sponsored Violence

This section presents findings on how state-sponsored violence is experienced and understood in Ghana and the United Kingdom. It focuses on the different forms such violence takes, the patterns in which it appears, and how it is expressed through policing, security operations, and state responses to public order situations.

5.1.1 Experience of State Force

Across Ghana and the United Kingdom, participants explained that security agencies often respond to protests in a controlled and sometimes forceful way. Although the level of force is not the same in both countries, many participants felt that security concerns are often placed above human rights during protest situations. In Ghana, a Human Rights Activist, a Journalist, and a Security and Policing Expert said that police and sometimes military officers are quickly deployed when protests occur, especially during elections or tense political moments. They explained that force is often used to disperse crowds, which can make situations worse instead of calming them.

One Human Rights Activist said: “When people gather to protest, the first response is usually force. The presence of police alone is intimidating, and things can quickly become chaotic.” (HRA1)

A Journalist added: “During election-related protests, security officers often move in quickly to break up crowds, sometimes before people fully understand what is happening.” (JNLS1)

A Security and Policing Expert explained: “The main aim is to control the situation, but the way it is done sometimes increases tension.” (SCTY2)

In the United Kingdom, a Human Rights Advocate, a Policing and Surveillance Scholar, and a Community Organiser described a more controlled system. They said protests are usually allowed, but the way police monitor and manage crowds still affects how people experience demonstrations.

A Human Rights Advocate (HRA-UK1) said: “Protests are generally allowed, but there is always a strong police presence watching closely.” (HRA-UK1)

A Policing and Surveillance Scholar (PSS-UK2) noted: “Control is mostly through monitoring and containment rather than open force.” (PSS-UK1)

A Community Organiser (CO-UK1) explained: “Even when things are peaceful, the police presence changes how people behave during protests.” (CO-UK1)

Overall, participants from Ghana described protest policing as more forceful and direct, especially during elections or political tensions. In the United Kingdom, participants described a more controlled system based on monitoring and regulation. However, in both countries, participants felt that maintaining order often takes priority over protecting the full freedom of protest.

5.1.2 Perception of Force and Fairness

Participants described interactions between security officers and civilians during arrests and detention as shaped by tension, uncertainty, and uneven application of procedure. While both countries have formal rules guiding arrests, the lived experience of those procedures was described as inconsistent and, at times, harsh. In Ghana, accounts from a Human Rights Activist and a Legal Practitioner pointed to situations where arrests are carried out in a force-driven manner, often with little explanation given to individuals at the point of arrest. The concern raised was not only about the use of force, but also the way rights are communicated during detention.

A Human Rights Activist (HRA1) described what is often seen on the ground during arrests: “During arrests, people are often handled in a very rough way. Even before anything is explained, force is already used.” (HRA1).

This view was reinforced by a Legal Practitioner who focused more on procedure and legal safeguards, noting gaps in how arrest processes are communicated to individuals: “In many cases, individuals are taken into custody quickly, and the process is not clearly explained to them at the time.” (LP1)

In the United Kingdom, a Human Rights Advocate and a Community Organiser described a more structured and rule-based system, but stressed that fairness is not always experienced equally across different social groups. Their concerns focused more on how discretion is applied during stop-and-search and arrest situations.

A Human Rights Advocate (HRA-UK1) explained the controlled nature of the system, but pointed to unequal experience: “The process is more controlled, but certain communities still feel they are treated unfairly during stops and arrests.” (HRA-UK1)

A Community Organiser (CO-UK1) added a more grounded observation from community experience: “Some interactions appear calm, but people still feel singled out, especially in stop-and-search situations.” (CO-UK1)

What emerges from the accounts is not simply a difference in law or procedure, but in how enforcement is experienced in practice. In Ghana, participants emphasised direct and sometimes forceful encounters during arrest situations, often accompanied by limited explanation of rights. In the United Kingdom, participants described more structured procedures, but raised concerns about unequal treatment and subjective application of policing powers. In both contexts, the interaction between civilians and security officers reflects a persistent imbalance of authority during enforcement actions.

5.1.3 Forms of State Action Seen as Human Rights Violations

Participants were asked to identify the kinds of state actions that are most commonly seen as human rights violations in their contexts. Their responses consistently pointed to excessive force, unlawful or rough arrests, intimidation during crowd control, and unequal treatment under policing powers. However, they also linked these concerns to real incidents that shaped public perception. In Ghana, discussions often drew on well-known public events where security responses were widely criticised. One Human Rights Activist referred to protest-related incidents where force was used during crowd control, especially during political tensions.

A Human Rights Activist explained: “When protests turn tense, the use of tear gas and force becomes the first response. People see this as a violation because it is often too quick and too harsh.” (HRA2)

A Security and Policing Expert linked this to election-related violence, noting that security operations during public disturbances often raise concerns about proportionality. A Security and Policing Expert stated: “During election disturbances, security responses sometimes involve live ammunition or aggressive crowd control, and this is where human rights concerns are raised.” (SCTY1)

In the United Kingdom, participants frequently referred to stop-and-search practices and surveillance-driven policing. These were not always described as illegal, but rather as practices that can feel discriminatory or excessive in certain communities.

A Human Rights Advocate referred to the stop-and-search experience in urban communities, especially among minority groups: “Many young people, especially from minority backgrounds, feel targeted during stop-and-search, even when no offence has been committed.” (HRA-UK2)

A Policing and Surveillance Scholar also pointed to the use of surveillance and monitoring in public spaces and protests, especially in urban areas: “Surveillance-heavy policing during demonstrations can make people feel watched and controlled, even when they are peaceful.” (PSS-UK2)

The accounts show that in Ghana, human rights concerns are more closely linked to visible force during protests, arrests, and election-related disturbances, where incidents involving tear gas or live ammunition shape public perception. In the United Kingdom, concerns are more associated with stop-and-search practices and surveillance-based policing, which are experienced as selective or intrusive, particularly among minority groups. In both cases, the common issue is not only the law itself, but how state power is exercised in practice and how it is experienced by citizens.

5.1.4 Interpretation of Police and Military Incidents in Relation to Human Rights Standards

Participants were asked how incidents involving police or military officers are generally understood in relation to human rights standards, and whether such actions are seen as justified, excessive, or influenced by politics. Their responses showed that interpretation is shaped by trust in institutions, political context, and perceptions of fairness in enforcement. In Ghana, a Human Rights Activist explained that public interpretation of security incidents often changes depending on whether the situation is linked to elections, protests, or political tension. In such moments, people are quick to question whether the use of force is necessary or politically driven: “People tend to see it as excessive when it happens during protests or elections because it feels politically motivated.” (HRA2)

A Journalist further described how public debate around police or military involvement often shifts quickly into questions about political influence and accountability, especially when such incidents are widely reported: “Public debate usually shifts quickly to whether the police or military were acting independently or under political pressure.” (JNLS2)

From a legal perspective, a Legal Practitioner highlighted that while the law focuses on proportionality of force, public interpretation often goes beyond legal reasoning and leans toward perceptions of abuse or misuse of power: “From a legal point of view, the key issue is whether the force used is proportionate, but in practice, people often see it as abuse of power.” (LP1)

In the United Kingdom, a Human Rights Advocate reflected on how incidents involving police are often assessed through legal standards, but still raise concerns when actions appear unnecessary or excessive: “Even when actions are lawful, people still question whether they are proportionate under human rights standards.” (HRA-UK1)

A Policing and Surveillance Scholar explained that public interpretation is also shaped by how transparent policing decisions appear, particularly during protest policing or surveillance operations: “Interpretation often depends on how transparent the policing decision appears to the public.” (PSS-UK2)

A Community Organiser added a grounded perspective from community experience, noting that perceptions of fairness are not evenly distributed across society: “In some communities, especially minority groups, there is a strong feeling that police actions are not always fair or neutral.” (CO-UK1)

Across both contexts, interpretation of police and military actions is shaped not only by the event itself but also by broader trust in state institutions. In Ghana, political context plays a strong role in shaping whether actions are seen as justified or excessive, especially during elections and protests. In the United Kingdom, legal standards and proportionality are more central to interpretation, but concerns about fairness and unequal treatment still influence public perception. In both cases, how people understand state action is closely tied to how legitimate they perceive state power to be.

5.2 Sociopolitical and Institutional Factors Shaping State Violence

This section of the analysis shifts attention from the forms and experiences of state-sponsored violence to the deeper sociopolitical and institutional conditions that shape its occurrence and expression in both Ghana and the United Kingdom. The focus here is on how political influence, legal frameworks, accountability systems, surveillance practices, and institutional histories contribute to patterns of state behaviour.

5.2.1 Political Influence on Security Institutions

Political leadership was widely seen as shaping how security institutions operate, though the way this influence appears differs between Ghana and the United Kingdom. Responses from participants pointed to a consistent link between government priorities and security behaviour, especially in moments of political tension or national concern. In Ghana, accounts from a Human Rights Activist, a Legal Practitioner, and a Security and Policing Expert suggested that security responses are often influenced by political context, particularly during elections and public protests. The concern raised was that security actions sometimes appear aligned with protecting political authority rather than maintaining neutrality.

One Human Rights Activist explained how this is experienced during tense political moments: “When there is political tension, security agencies seem to respond in a way that protects government interest first.” (HRA1)

A Legal Practitioner described the influence as less direct but still present in operational decisions: “In practice, instructions may not be openly political, but decisions taken on the ground often reflect political priorities.” (LP1)

A Security and Policing Expert added that even without explicit orders, expectations from leadership can shape behaviour: “Security operations are officially neutral, but in sensitive moments, political expectations shape how officers respond.” (SCTY1)

In the United Kingdom, a Human Rights Advocate, a Policing and Surveillance Scholar, and a Community Organiser described a more structured system where political influence operates through policy direction and institutional frameworks rather than direct control.

A Human Rights Advocate noted: “Political influence is not direct, but government policy shapes policing priorities, especially around protest and national security.” (HRA-UK1)

A Policing and Surveillance Scholar explained this further: “The influence comes through policy frameworks and security strategies rather than direct instruction.” (PSS-UK1)

A Community Organiser highlighted how this is felt at community level: “People feel the impact through how certain areas are policed more heavily than others.” (CO-UK1)

In Ghana, political influence is often perceived as more immediate and closely linked to specific political events such as elections and protests. In the United Kingdom, it is more indirect, operating through policies and institutional priorities. Despite this difference, participants in both contexts agreed that political leadership plays a role in shaping security behaviour, even when that influence is not openly stated.

5.2.2 Effectiveness of Accountability Systems in Addressing State Abuse

Views on accountability systems such as courts, oversight bodies, and internal investigations showed clear differences in how participants understood the ability of institutions to check abuses by state actors. Across both countries, there was a shared concern that accountability often exists in structure but is uneven in practice. In Ghana, a Legal Practitioner, a Human Rights Activist, and a Civil Society Representative described accountability systems as present but often slow, inconsistent, and influenced by institutional or political pressures. They pointed to cases where investigations into security-related abuses did not lead to clear or timely outcomes, which reduced public trust in the system.

A Legal Practitioner explained the gap between legal structure and practical enforcement: “The institutions exist, but enforcement is often weak, and cases involving security officers take too long to resolve.” (LP1)

A Human Rights Activist added that public confidence is affected when outcomes are not visible: “People do not always see results after complaints are made, so they lose trust in the system.” (HRA2)

A Civil Society Representative highlighted how delays and lack of follow-through weaken accountability in practice: “Even when cases are reported, follow-up action is not always clear or consistent.” (CSR1)

In the United Kingdom, a Human Rights Advocate, a Legal Expert, and a Policing and Surveillance Scholar described a more structured accountability system, but still raised concerns about effectiveness in certain cases, especially where institutional independence or transparency is questioned.

A Human Rights Advocate noted: “There are strong oversight systems, but not all cases lead to meaningful consequences for misconduct.” (HRA-UK1)

A Legal Expert explained that accountability processes can be complex and slow: “Investigations are usually formal, but outcomes can take time and are not always perceived as satisfactory.” (LE-UK1)

A Policing and Surveillance Scholar added that public perception often depends on visibility of outcomes: “When accountability is not visible, people assume the system is not working, even if processes are ongoing.” (PSS-UK1)

Overall, participants in Ghana described accountability systems as weaker in practice, mainly due to delays, limited enforcement, and reduced public confidence in outcomes. In the United Kingdom, systems were seen as more structured and institutionalised, but concerns remained about transparency, effectiveness, and whether sanctions are consistently applied. In both contexts, accountability was viewed as existing more strongly in principle than in lived experience.

5.2.3 Role of Laws and Institutional Policies in Security Responses

The role of laws and institutional policies was described as central in shaping how security agencies respond to protests, crime, and civil unrest. However, participants also noted that the consistency of application varies, and in practice, other factors such as discretion, context, and institutional culture often influence outcomes. In Ghana, a Legal Practitioner, a Human Rights Activist, and a Security and Policing Expert explained that although legal frameworks exist to guide policing and crowd control, enforcement is not always consistent. They pointed to situations where rules appear clear on paper but are applied differently depending on the event or level of political tension.

A Legal Practitioner explained the gap between law and practice: “The laws are there, but how they are applied depends a lot on the situation on the ground.” (LP1)

A Human Rights Activist added that inconsistency in application affects public trust: “People often feel that the rules are not applied equally, especially during protests or politically sensitive events.” (HRA1)

A Security and Policing Expert noted that operational discretion plays a major role: “Officers interpret policies based on the situation, and this can lead to different outcomes in similar cases.” (SCTY2)

In the United Kingdom, a Human Rights Advocate, a Legal Expert, and a Policing and Surveillance Scholar described a more structured legal environment, where policies strongly guide policing behaviour. However, they also noted that interpretation and operational decisions still create variation in practice.

A Human Rights Advocate stated: “There are clear rules guiding police action, but application can still vary depending on context.” (HRA-UK2)

A Legal Expert explained the institutional strength of the system: “Policies are detailed and legally binding, but enforcement still depends on interpretation at operational level.” (LE-UK2)

A Policing and Surveillance Scholar added: “Even within strong legal frameworks, discretion means responses are not always identical across situations.” (PSS-UK1)

Across both contexts, laws and institutional policies were seen as important in guiding security responses. In Ghana, participants emphasised inconsistency in application and strong influence of situational factors. In the United Kingdom, the legal framework was described as more structured and rule-based, but discretion and context still affected implementation. In both cases, the effectiveness of laws depended not only on their existence but on how consistently they were applied in practice.

5.2.4 Influence of Surveillance, Policing Strategies, and Historical Practices on State Power

The influence of surveillance systems, policing strategies, and historical institutional practices was described by participants as a key factor in shaping how state power is exercised today. Many explained that current security practices cannot be fully understood without considering historical patterns and evolving institutional methods. In Ghana, a Security and Policing Expert, a Human Rights Activist, and an Academic linked present-day policing behaviour to both colonial-era control systems and past military influence on governance. They suggested that these historical experiences still shape attitudes toward authority, order, and the use of force.

A Security and Policing Expert reflected on continuity in policing culture: “Some of the current approaches still reflect older styles of policing that focus heavily on control and discipline.” (SCTY2)

A Human Rights Activist added that this historical influence affects how force is perceived and used: “The way security is managed today still carries traces of past systems where force was seen as a normal response to disorder.” (HRA1)

An Academic noted that institutional memory continues to shape behaviour: “Even with reforms, institutions do not completely break away from their historical foundations.” (ACS1)

In the United Kingdom, a Policing and Surveillance Scholar, a Human Rights Advocate, and a Civil Liberty Organisation Representative explained that modern policing is strongly shaped by advanced surveillance systems and long-standing institutional practices, especially those linked to national security and public order management.

A Policing and Surveillance Scholar explained the role of modern systems: “Surveillance technologies and data-led policing have become central to how state power is exercised in everyday life.” (PSS-UK1)

A Human Rights Advocate pointed to continuity in policing traditions:

“Some policing strategies still reflect long-established approaches to managing public order and perceived risk.” (HRA-UK2)

A Civil Liberty Organisation Representative raised concerns about the long-term effects of these systems: “Once surveillance systems are established, they tend to expand and become part of normal policing practice.” (CLO-UK1)

Participants in Ghana emphasised the influence of colonial and military legacies on current policing practices, particularly in relation to control-oriented approaches to public order. In the United Kingdom, the focus was more on modern surveillance systems and institutional continuity in policing strategies. Despite these differences, respondents in both contexts agreed that historical practices and institutional traditions continue to shape how state power is exercised in the present day.

6. DISCUSSION

In Ghana, security forces use force quickly during protests and elections. People are often arrested roughly and given little explanation of their rights. In the United Kingdom, policing is more controlled. People feel watched during protests, targeted during stop-and-search encounters, and subjected to surveillance even when no physical force is used. These contrasting experiences formed the central pattern of the current study. The quick use of force during protests in Ghana matches what Bob-Milliar () and Tankebe () documented about politicised security and routine coercion. However, the current study shows that the speed of escalation matters. People in Ghana said force is applied “too quickly,” not just forcefully. This temporal dimension, the timing of force has received little attention in previous research on Ghana. In the United Kingdom, the reliance on monitoring and containment rather than open force aligns with (Lynch, 2002) and (Pesaran, 2007), who described surveillance-based public order management. (Mehlman, 1977) theory of disciplinary power is also visible here: the presence of police changes behaviour even without physical violence. But the current study adds that calm, lawful encounters can still produce feelings of being targeted, especially among minority communities. This extends the work of (Bowling & Phillips, 2007), who documented racial disparities in stop-and-search, by showing that procedural correctness does not guarantee perceived fairness.

The rough handling and lack of procedural explanation in Ghana confirm the accounts of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice ( (Botchwey & Cunninghama, 2025)) and Tankebe (). What previous research has not emphasised is the absence of explanation at the point of arrest as a distinct grievance. People in Ghana complained not only about physical treatment but also about not being told why they were being arrested or what their rights were. In the United Kingdom, the Equality and Human Rights (Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, 2010) and (Bowling & Phillips, 2007) showed disparities in stop-and-search outcomes. The current study shows that operational discretion is the mechanism behind those disparities. Officers make decisions within a framework of clear rules, but those decisions produce unequal treatment. How people interpret state violence also emerged clearly. People in Ghana did not primarily judge police or military actions by legal standards of proportionality. Instead, they asked whether force was politically motivated. This confirms Bob-Milliar’s () argument about politicised security but challenges the assumption, common in work by (Simmons, 2009) and (Hathaway, 2003), that legal compliance is the main concern of affected populations. In the United Kingdom, people said that even lawful actions can be viewed as illegitimate if they lack transparency or appear disproportionate. This supports (Coomber et al., 2015) work on police legitimacy but questions the optimism of treaty-based research, which tends to treat formal compliance as effective rights protection.

Political influence on security institutions operates differently in the two countries, but the current study shows that both forms are visible to citizens. In Ghana, security agencies respond to protect government interests, especially during elections and protests, often without explicit orders. This aligns with the analysis of Hutchful () and (Jinadu, 1996), who traced postcolonial security governance to colonial and military legacies. In the United Kingdom, political influence is indirect, operating through national security strategies and policing priorities, as (Pesaran, 2007) and (Lynch, 2002) described. But people in the United Kingdom stated that they feel this influence through heavier policing in certain neighbourhoods. Indirect influence, therefore, is not invisible.

Accountability systems frustrated people in both countries. In Ghana, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice exists but is slow, produces few visible outcomes, and fails to enforce sanctions. This confirms Tankebe () and the (Botchwey & Cunninghama, 2025) report. In the United Kingdom, despite stronger oversight bodies such as the Independent Office for Police Conduct, people expressed similar frustrations. Cases take too long, meaningful consequences are rare, and the invisibility of outcomes erodes trust. This challenges the assumption in comparative work by (Tanabe et al., 2005) and Poe, Tate, and (Keith et al., 2001) that developed democracies have resolved the accountability problem. The gap between Ghana and the United Kingdom in perceived accountability may be smaller than previously thought. Laws and policies exist in both countries, but consistency of application is the real issue. In Ghana, laws are applied differently depending on political context and officer discretion. In the United Kingdom, even detailed, legally binding policies produce variable outcomes because operational interpretation is never uniform. This supports the critique by (Aggarwal et al., 2011) and Abu-Lughod (), who argued that studying legal frameworks alone misses how law is implemented in practice. Discretion is a universal feature of policing systems, not a sign of institutional weakness. Historical legacies explain much of what the current study observed. In Ghana, people explicitly linked current policing to colonial-era control systems and past military governance. They described a culture where force is normalised as a response to disorder, and they said institutions do not break completely from their historical foundations. This directly supports (Author, 1961) postcolonial theory and (Wang & Rooda, 1996) analysis of coercive continuity. Ordinary citizens recognise and articulate this continuity. In the United Kingdom, people emphasised surveillance technologies, data-led policing, and long-established traditions of public order management. One person noted that once surveillance systems are established, they tend to expand and become normalised. This reflects (Mehlman, 1977) disciplinary power and (DeMaio, 2009) work on surveillance societies, showing that these dynamics are felt in everyday encounters with the state.

7. CONCLUSION

This study compared state-sponsored violence in Ghana and the United Kingdom through a sociological, interview-based approach. The findings show that while the forms of state violence differ between the two countries, the underlying problems are similar. In Ghana, state violence is direct, forceful, and politically visible. Security forces use tear gas, live ammunition, and rough arrests, especially during elections and protests. In the United Kingdom, state violence is more institutionalised and less visible, it operates through surveillance, stop-and-search practices, and discretionary policing that disproportionately affects minority communities. Despite these differences, the study found four common patterns across both countries. First, political influence shapes security behaviour in both contexts, whether directly (Ghana) or through policy priorities (UK). Second, accountability systems in both countries frustrate citizens because outcomes are slow, invisible, and rarely lead to meaningful consequences. Third, laws and policies exist on paper but are applied inconsistently, with officer discretion producing unequal treatment in both settings. Fourth, historical legacies, colonial and military in Ghana, surveillance and public order traditions in the UK continue to shape how state power is exercised today.

The study challenges two common assumptions. One is that legal compliance equals legitimacy. People in both countries judged state actions by whether they were fair, transparent, and politically neutral, not merely by whether they were lawful. The other assumption is that developed democracies like the UK have solved the problem of state violence. The findings show that frustration with policing and accountability in the UK is deeper than institutional descriptions suggest, and the gap between Ghana and the UK may be smaller than previously thought.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

For Ghana, accountability mechanisms such as the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice require strengthening through clearer enforcement powers, faster investigation timelines, and public reporting of case outcomes. The current study found that invisibility of results erodes trust more than delays alone. Additionally, police training should emphasise the explanation of rights at the point of arrest, as the absence of procedural communication was a distinct grievance among participants. For the United Kingdom, oversight bodies such as the Independent Office for Police Conduct should improve the transparency of their investigations and produce visible outcomes more quickly. The study found that even strong institutional frameworks fail to generate public confidence when outcomes remain invisible. Furthermore, policing strategies that rely heavily on surveillance and stop-and-search should be reviewed for their cumulative impact on minority communities, as participants described feeling targeted even during calm, lawful encounters.

First, future research should include the perspectives of security personnel themselves. The current study drew on interviews with human rights activists, legal practitioners, journalists, community organisers, and academics. Police officers, military personnel, and members of oversight bodies were not represented. Understanding how state actors justify, perceive, and experience their own use of force would provide a more complete picture. Second, comparative research should expand beyond Ghana and the United Kingdom to include other postcolonial and developed democratic states. Testing whether the patterns observed here direct versus institutionalised violence, visible versus invisible accountability failures hold across other pairs of countries would strengthen the generalisability of the findings.

8. CONTRIBUTION

The main contribution of the study is methodological and theoretical. By comparing two very different state contexts through the lived experiences of citizens and practitioners, the study reveals patterns of harm that remain invisible to large‑N index studies and treaty‑compliance research. It confirms the value of Galtung’s structural violence theory, Foucault’s disciplinary power for the UK, and Fanon’s postcolonial theory for Ghana, while showing that all three frameworks are needed to understand how state violence is produced, sustained, and normalised across different political and developmental settings.

REFERNCES

(Author, 2014). Do Muslim women need saving? Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674725764

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Publishers. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1836336

(Jinadu, 1996). Democracy and development in Africa. Brookings Institution Press. https://www.brookings.edu/books/democracy-and-development-in-africa/

Aning, E. K. (2006). An overview of the Ghana Police Service. Journal of Security Sector Management, 4, 1–37.

Beitz, C. R. (2009). The idea of human rights. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572456.001.0001

Bob-Milliar, G. M. (2014). Party youth activists and low-intensity electoral violence in Ghana: A qualitative study of party foot soldiers’ activism. African Studies Quarterly, 15, 125–152. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=3966225

Bowling, B., & (Bowling & Phillips, 2007). Disproportionate and discriminatory: Reviewing the evidence on police stop and search. The Modern Law Review, 70( (Davenport, 2010)), 936–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2007.00671.x

Braun, V., & (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3( (Tanabe et al., 2005)), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

(Baur et al., 2013). Qualitative interviewing. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199861392.001.0001

(Saunders et al., 2017). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/social-research-methods-9780199689451

Cingranelli, D. L., & Richards, D. L. (2010). The Cingranelli and Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Data Project. Human Rights Quarterly, 32( (Tanabe et al., 2005)), 401–424. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40783984

(Agboyi et al., 2021). Ghana’s ‘Fix the Country’ protesters decry deadly crackdowns. Voice of America. https://www.voaafrica.com/a/ghana-fix-the-country-protesters-decry-deadly-crackdowns/5953927.html

Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ). (2025, April 8). Press statement: CHRAJ condemns violence at Ayawaso West Wuogon. https://chraj.gov.gh/2025/04/08/press-statement-chraj-condemns-violence-at-ayawaso-west-wuogon/

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/qualitative-inquiry-and-research-design/book246896

(Davenport, 2010). State repression and political order. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.101405.143216

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/the-sage-handbook-of-qualitative-research/book242504

(authors et al., 2015). Universal human rights in theory and practice (3rd ed.). Cornell University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt1xx5q2

Equality and Human Rights (Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, 2010). Stop and think again: Towards race equality in police PACE stop and search. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/stop_and_think_again_word.doc

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5( (authors et al., 2015)), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

(Thiéry & Mémery, 1961). The wretched of the earth. Grove Press. https://www.groveatlantic.com/book/the-wretched-of-the-earth/9780802141323

Fariss, C. J. (2014). Respect for human rights has improved over time: Modeling the changing standard of accountability. American Political Science Review, 108( (Tanabe et al., 2005)), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000070

(Farmer et al., 2006). An anthropology of structural violence. Current Anthropology, 45( (Author, 1951)), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1086/382250

Finnemore, M., & (Keck & Sikkink, 1999). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52( (Greenwood & Freeman, 2017)), 887–917. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789

(White, 1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=3212215

(Marsden & Campbell, 2012). Human rights: An interdisciplinary approach (2nd ed.). Polity Press. https://books.google.com.gh/books/about/Human_Rights.html?id=uEgE9OJtKoIC&redir_esc=y

(Gratzer & Keeton, 2017). From the Millennium Development Goals to the Sustainable Development Goals: Shifts in purpose, concept, and politics of global goal setting for development. Gender & Development, 24( (authors et al., 2015)), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2016.1145895

(Goldthorpe & Galtung, 1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6( (Author, 1951)), 167–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336900600301

(Kehl, 1991). Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research, 27( (Author, 1951)), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343390027003005

(Lynch, 2002). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226190174.001.0001

(Porter, 1986). The nation-state and violence. Polity Press. https://download.e-bookshelf.de/download/0003/4384/91/L-G-0003438491-0006343657.pdf

Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2013). Making human rights a reality. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400846283

Hafner-Burton, E. M., & (Ubuka et al., 2007). Human rights in a globalizing world: The paradox of empty promises. American Journal of Sociology, 110( (Porter, 1986)), 1373–1411. https://doi.org/10.1086/428442

Hathaway, O. A. (2002). Do human rights treaties make a difference? Yale Law Journal, 111( (Spronken, 2010)), 1935–2042. https://doi.org/10.2307/797642

Home Office. (2021). Police powers and procedures, England and Wales: Year ending 31 March 2020. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-powers-and-procedures-england-and-wales-year-ending-31-march-2020

(Wasara, 2002). Ghana’s adjustment experience: The paradox of reform. UNRISD. https://books.google.com.gh/books/about/Ghana_s_Adjustment_Experience.html?id=CtWp1toXpwUC&redir_esc=y

Independent Police Complaints Commission. (2011). The fatal police shooting of Mr Mark Duggan on 4 August 2011. https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/news/2015/mar/uk-IPCC-investigation-report-fatal-shooting-of-MD.pdf

Kvale, S., & (Chiasson et al., 2015). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2154192

(Tanabe et al., 2005). Protecting human rights: A comparative study. Georgetown University Press. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=3685671

(Holthausen & Watts, 2000). States of development: On the primacy of politics in development. Polity Press. https://www.politybooks.com/bookdetail?book_slug=states-of-development-on-the-primacy-of-politics-in-development--9780745608433

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/naturalistic-inquiry/book842

Ling, A. (2012). Review of Beitz, C. R. The idea of human rights (). German Law Journal, 13( (authors et al., 2015)), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200020393

Loader, I. (2006). Policing, recognition, and belonging. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 605( (authors et al., 2015)), 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716206286723

Lyon, D. (2007). Surveillance studies: An overview. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 33( (Tanabe et al., 2005)). https://doi.org/10.29173/cjs2004

(Clapham, 1997). Citizen and subject: Contemporary Africa and the legacy of late colonialism. Princeton University Press. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1457724

Merry, S. E. (2011). Measuring the world: Indicators, human rights, and global governance. Current Anthropology, 52(S3), S83–S95. https://doi.org/10.1086/657241

Ministry of the Interior (Ghana). (). Report of the three-member ministerial committee of inquiry into the Ejura disturbances (June 2021). Government of Ghana. https://www.mint.gov.gh/interior-minister-receives-report-on-ejura-incident/

MyNewsGH. (2022, December 9). 2020 election: We can’t find shooters in Techiman collation killings; case now cold — Police to Mahama. https://www.mynewsgh.com/2020-election-we-cant-find-shooters-in-techiman-collation-killings-case-now-cold-police-to-mahama/

(Newburn et al., 2016). The 2011 England riots in recent historical perspective. The British Journal of Criminology, 55( (authors et al., 2015)), 39–64. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43819259

(O’Neill & Wall, 1987). Making sense of human rights (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing. https://books.google.com.gh/books/about/Making_Sense_of_Human_Rights.html?id=htOh-jXX6sIC&redir_esc=y

Nowak, M. (2003). Introduction to the international human rights regime. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/isbn/9789004479074/html?srsltid=AfmBOoqO8Ytirf2cxc5K7YPAnzcmkCtioMc58i2rI0_pikiG4ckKgEMJ

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

Open Society (Bojanowski et al., 2017). Eroding trust: The UK’s Prevent counter-extremism strategy in health and education. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/events/eroding-trust-uk-s-prevent-counter-extremism-strategy-health-and-education

Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42( (Porter, 1986)), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

Pantazis, C., & (Roelen et al., 2009). From the “old” to the “new” suspect community: Examining the impacts of recent UK counter-terrorist legislation. British Journal of Criminology, 49( (Porter, 1986)), 646–666. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azp031

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/qualitative-research-evaluation-methods/book232962

Poe, S. C., Tate, C. N., & Keith, L. C. (1999). Repression of the human right to personal integrity revisited: A global cross-national study covering the years 1976–1993. International Studies Quarterly, 43( (Tanabe et al., 2005)), 291–313. https://academic.oup.com/isq/article-abstract/43/2/291/1796912

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1770556

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22( (Tanabe et al., 2005)), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201

Sikkink, K. (2011). The justice cascade: How human rights prosecutions are changing world politics. W. W. Norton & Company. https://ksikkink.scholars.harvard.edu/publications/justice-cascade-how-human-rights-prosecutions-are-changing-world-politics

Simmons, B. A. (2009). Mobilizing for human rights: International law in domestic politics. Cambridge University Press. https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/85102/frontmatter/9780521885102_frontmatter.pdf

Stark, B. (1991). Review of The age of rights, by L. Henkin. The American Journal of International Law, 85( (Greenwood & Freeman, 2017)), 733–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/2203287

(Tankebe, 2008). Colonialism, legitimation, and policing in Ghana. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 36, 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2007.12.003

(Tilly, 2003). The politics of collective violence. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819131

United (Author, 1951). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/case-study-research-and-applications/book250150