The Spokesperson for the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), Tony Forson, says it was time for the General Legal Council (GLC), currently led by the Chief Justice, Georgina Wood, to crack the whip on lawyers who show disrespect to judges after their ruling.
Speaking on Joy FM’s Top Story on Monday, he underscored that lawyers are allowed to pass comment after ruling – whether in their favour or not -, but they must be “civil and must show respect to the court”.
Tony Forson, son of an ex-Attorney General and Minister of Justice, under the regime of Flt. Lt. Jerry John Rawlings, Ankony K. Forson, said there were calls for concern if comments by lawyers and the general public sought to “bring court’s authority into ridicule”.
Mr. Forson’s comments come on the back of concerns expressed by Justices of the Supreme Court, hearing the ongoing election petition filed by three members of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), namely: Nana Akufo-Addo, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, and Jake Obetsebi Lamptey.
The judges had cause to condemn comments by the general public including lawyers, especially a cousin to one of the petitioners, Nana Akufo-Addo, the Executive Director of the Danquah Institute (DI), Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko who in an article described the respected justices as nervous and fearful.
Gabby, commenting on Bernard Mornah’s case, which was pronounced in favour of Mr. Mornah described, the Supreme Court Justices as “timid”. The unwarranted criticisms against their ruling, last Monday, drew the wrath of the Supreme Court Justices, especially Nasiru Sulemana Gbadegbe.
Mr. Otchere-Darko had since withdrew the unfortunate comment and apologized to members of the bench using his facebook page.
“My apologies to the Supreme Court, members of which feel offended by my description of part of their decision in the Mornah case as timid in an article I wrote. I hereby withdraw the use of the word “timidity” and apologise unreservedly to their Lordships”, he wrote on his wall.
Citing a case involving the Republic vrs Mensah Bonsu, Mr. Forson said the court in such instances can cite lawyers for contempt.
Also, he noted that the Ghana Bar Association, had on several occasion drawn the attention of its members to the fact that such comments are unhealthy and “are not right”.
However he conceded that the Association cannot on its own crack the whip on members whose actions offended the court.
“The authority to crack the whip lies with the General Legal Council, and I would hope that the General Legal Council will be up and doing and discipline the lawyers who go wayward.
“It is my strong view that it is only when people are sanctioned that people will take a cue from the sanctioning and behave properly… There is very little we [GBA] can do,” he said.
According to Mr. Forson, it is within the ambit of the judges to suspend lawyers, cause their license to be withdrawn or revocation of license among several other sanctions if they cross the line.
"Judges must be respected and protected," he said emphatically, noting that it is based on their expertise that cases are brought before them for adjudication.
Assessing Gabby’s write up, he said certain portions of the statement will certainly not go down well with a number of people, but the “total write up was in a good spirit”.
Below is Gabby’s article titled : “The Supreme Court Showed Its Timidity In The Mornah Case”
It appears whiles freedom fighters like Aung San Suu Kyi are calling for the judiciary, as an institution, to be “strengthened and released from political interference”, our courts in Ghana find it ok to park the wheels of justice on the compounds of the legislature, expecting to be towed out of there at the pleasure of the executive.
If ever there was a farcical case that the Supreme Court was ever called on to exercise its constitutional powers in order to assert the independence of the judiciary in line with the doctrine of the separation of powers, and stay off any undue reach of the hands of the other two arms of government to frustrate the administration of justice, then the Bernard Mornah case was it.
The General Secretary of the People’s National Convention, and known sympathizer of the National Democrat Congress, Bernard Anbataayela Mornah, challenged aspects of the Supreme Court rules on the presidential election petitions, a move clearly motivated by the decision by the presidential candidate, vice presidential candidate and the chairman of the New Patriotic Party to challenge at the Supreme Court the validity of the results of the December 2012 presidential poll.
Rule 69C(5) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012, (CI 74), which has been held unconstitutional, read: “The Court shall sit from day to day, including public holidays”, when hearing a presidential election petition. This provision was there to facilitate a vital element in the administration of legal challenges to a presidential election: expeditious disposal of the case. Indeed, I submit that this provision was in line with the Constitution and ought to have been so upheld.
Indeed, the people involved, and the circumstances surrounding the writ which successfully challenged aspects of CI 74 should have even put the court on notice and made it more alert to its responsibilities of protecting its independence and upholding the doctrine of separation of powers.
First, the suit was filed two days after the election petition against John Mahama was filed. The lawyer who filed the writ on behalf of the plaintiff was Raymond Atuguba, who shortly afterwards was appointed the Executive Secretary to the man whose presidency was being challenged, handing over the brief to an NDC MP and later nominee for Deputy Minister of Interior.
Their case was that the courts should not open for business on a public holiday until the President issues an Executive Instrument (EI) permitting it. Adding to this litigation farce was the fact that the defendant in the case was the President’s legal adviser, the Attorney-General.
Knowing very well that, in effect, the President’s lawyer, the A-G, was being asked to defend a case brought by agents of the President, Godfred Yeboah Dame, a lawyer, who also happens to be one of the lawyers for the 3 petitioners challenging the validity of the 2012 presidential election, appeared in court in the Mornah case in the hope of acting as an amicus curia (a friend of the court), to make legal arguments supporting the position that the writ should fail. But he was not allowed to be heard.
Essentially, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Public Holidays Act, 2001 (Act 601), provides that the courts of law may not open for business unless the President issues an Executive Instrument permitting it. My question is, will President Mahama now grant such permission?
