GTV's Bias Political Reporting

: NDC MUST DEMONSTRATE

If I were the leader of NDC, or if I were one of the influential national executive, or a member of the Atta Mills campaign, I would have long organized a massive demonstration against GTV for their shameless bias in the coverage of Ghana’s 2008 electioneering campaign. Still, I don’t think it is too late for NDC to organize such a demonstration at this time. NDC TEIN or youth wing, or women groups, or particular constituencies in Accra could do it while the presidential candidate and his running mate concentrate on their campaign. The demonstration must end at the gate of the GBC with a petition that would lend support to NDC’s deputy youth organizer, Mr. Ludwig Hlodze’s recent call for the dismissal of the GBC boss.


This writer thinks that it is hypocritical of the Christian Council of Ghana and all those members of the clergy—who are pretending to be praying for peaceful election, and are sponsoring and featuring in commercials that urge politicians to criticize justly and fairly—to remain silent and unconcerned when GTV is already sowing seeds of violence by their unfair political reporting that gives over 95% of all campaign news to the ruling party and its leadership. GTV is the property of all Ghanaians irrespective of our political leanings. The taxes of all of us, whether in NDC, CPP, or NPP, are now being used to the advantage of only the ruling NPP. We have a good cause to protest as vehemently as we can.


GTV’s bias political reporting is not a secret to Ghanaians at all, there is therefore no need to recount instances of the station’s foolishness; it abounds; just tune in today to monitor it. During the past week, for instance, there were news items on Nana Akufo-Addo, Dr. Bawumia, Mr. Peter Manu, and the NPP campaign in general, almost every single day on GTV. When these were broadcasted, GTV alloted lots of time for the NPP activists to make their points. At the end of the week, they said something very little about the wives of Dr. Nduom and John Mahama. If GTV is all that one watches while in Ghana, the person would think that only NPP is campaigning for the December elections. Besides the NPP campaign news that feature in major news broadcasts, documentaries are also shown on various issues from parts of Ghana to promote the NPP. There is also what is described as Nana’s Diary on GTV almost every single day. But, when NDC invited GTV to do live coverage of the launching of the party’s Manifesto, GTV gave excuses and failed to cover the event. If NDC sends documentaries to GTV, the station gives excuses that the videos do not meet GTV criteria and would therefore not be shown. So, the Christian council of Ghana is telling us that this treatment of NDC does not matter and we must still criticize justly to avoid violence in this year’s election? WHAT A CRAP?


The only arrangement that must be acceptable to the NDC and other major opposition parties is that anytime NPP’s campaign news is broadcasted for 5 minutes, each of the other parties must also have 5 minutes coverage of their campaign activities in the same news bulletin. If this would not be practicable, then if news on NPP’s campaign is broadcasted on a particular day, news on other political parties’ campaign must be broadcasted on the following days before anything on NPP is broadcasted again. It is completely unacceptable to broadcast news on Dr. Bawumia’s campaign tour on Monday, Nana Akufo-Addo’s tour on Tuesday, and NPP chairman’s press conference on Wednesday, and repeat news on these same people on Thursday and Friday before a little time is given to other parties in Friday night. NDC MUST EMBARK ON A DEMONSTRATION NOW. IT IS URGENT. WE MUST NOT LET GTV RAP US WITH ANY SWEET TALKS.


MATTERS ARRISING FROM THE LAUNCH OF NDC MANIFESTO

Just talk to anyone that follows political news in Ghana recently and you would realize that the launching of NDC’s Manifesto has caused a lot of sensation among the people. All radio and TV discussions have focused on NDC’s Manifesto in particular, with some little attention on other parties’ manifestoes. Mrs. Hannah Tetteh, Alex Segbefia, Lee Ocran, and others are doing a great job explaining the contents of the document to Ghanaians. This is a clear indication that NDC has done a great job in putting the document together. Following the launch, a number of matters have arisen, with the most ridiculous being NPP’s whining that NDC had plagiarized its poorly written and packaged manifesto. In the last half of this article, I wish to address two issues that have resulted from the launching of NDC’s Manifesto.


1. NDC SAYS ALL SUPREME COURT JUSTICES MUST SIT ON EVERY CASE


By and large, this is one fine policy proposal that NPP “confusionists” and their cohorts in the media and the legal profession are dishonestly distorting to create confusion in the minds of Ghanaians. I have heard Kweku Baako on Metro TV said that NDC did not do “deep thinking” in coming out with such a proposal to have all the Supreme Court Justices to sit on every case that comes to the court. I have also heard one vocal lawyer, who was described as a law lecturer in the Makola Law School in Ghana, made some ridiculous statements on Joy FM on this subject. I was very disappointed that he lectures young Ghanaian lawyers. I tried to get on the program to no avail. I also tried to speak on this issue at a NDC news conference but failed because of the limited time available for the event. I believe the appropriate time will come.


Basically, Kweku Baako’s point was that although it may be physically possible for all of Ghana’s Supreme Court Justices to sit on every case that comes to the court, there would be problems if “reviews” are requested. A review, in this case, is when a party to a case in the Supreme Court is dissatisfied with the court’s decision and asks the court to re-look at the issues and overturn its earlier decision. The term, “review” in Ghana’s legal system has become particularly popular only recently because of the famous Tsatsu Tsikata Fast Track victory in the Supreme Court that got manipulated and overturned by Kufuor’s NPP government of which Nana Akufo-Addo was the Attorney General. Kweku Baako needs to be educated that the kind of “review” Ghana’s Supreme Court entertained in the Tsatsu case, and the manner in which it was addressed was actually a novelty that must be discouraged in the future. Below is why no true democratic state must encourage the kind of review the NPP government forced Ghana’s Supreme Court to do in the Tsatsu Tsikata case.


Normally, when it is said that a particular court decides an issue, the court is the presiding official or judge that makes the decision. Reviews of courts decisions would therefore be reasonable mostly when they are done by higher courts. It means that decisions that are unacceptable to litigants must be appealed to next higher courts for review. The appellate process in litigation is therefore the best review of judicial decisions. By this exposition, it should be clear that the only proper review of a court’s decision should be done by another court – mostly, a higher court. This is why appeals are made to higher courts from lower court decisions. The only other type of a review of a court’s decision that must be acceptable in a true democratic society is the one made by the same court based on a party’s request that an earlier decision was grossly erroneous for factual or legal reasons.

Remember that I have already explained that a court’s decision is a judge or a jury’s decision. Either another court (i.e. another judge) with appellate jurisdiction or the same court (i.e. the same judge) must review the earlier decision if the review process must be meaningful. Let’s now analyze the Fast Track Court review by our Supreme Court within the context discussed thus far.


There is only one Supreme Court in Ghana, and it is the highest court of the land. Decisions from this court are final and unreviewable by another court. The decisions of the Supreme Court are the decisions of the justices of the court. The justices represent the court. If a different panel of the court hears a case that was already heard by other justices of the same court, it would seem as if there is more than one Supreme Court. In that case, one Supreme Court (one set of justices) of Ghana decides “A” in a particular case and another Supreme Court (different set of justices or new additions) decides “B” in the same case. It sounds chaotic. Indeed, it is chaotic. This is what happened in the Fast Track Court case review. One Supreme Court, say, GHANA SUPREME COURT 1 (one set of justices) decided that the jurisdiction of the Fast Track Courts was unconstitutional and another Supreme Court, say, GHANA SUPREME COURT 2 (because the court looked different with the addition of new justices) decided that the jurisdiction of the Fast Track Courts was constitutional. So, the second Supreme Court overturned the decision of the first Supreme Court.


This chaotic scenario could have been avoided if Nana Akufo-Addo’s office were not bent on influencing the judiciary to jail Tsatsu Tsikata at all costs. Even if Ghana’s Constitution and the court rules allow for reviews of Supreme Court decisions, such requests must be made the same court (i.e. the same justices that made the earlier decisions), and made judiciously. Empanelling different justices or adding new ones to hear the case is tantamount to constituting a different court to hear the case. The court is the judge. The above may be a little complex, but if people take their time, and eschew political bias they will find the reading interesting.


If Kweku Baako’s problem for making all Supreme Court Justices to sit on every case is because there may be requests for reviews, then he would learn from the foregoing that if at all government must ask for reviews of earlier Supreme Court decisions, it must be asked of the same court (the same justices that decided the earlier cases). My feeling is that if possible, governments must never ask the Supreme Court to revise an earlier decision against such government and change them into decisions in favor of the governments.


Another view of the NDC proposal that all the Supreme Court Justices must sit on every case that comes before the court is that the government would be interfering with the court by requiring the court to behave in a particular way instead of allowing the court to administratively empanel for cases. Actually, one commentator astonishingly explained it to mean that NDC was proposing to empanel the Supreme Court for cases when the party wins the 2008 elections. It is very surprising that some lawyers, including lecturers in Ghana Law School hold this view. Can’t these lawyers see that the best way to avoid executive interference with the Supreme Court is to require all the justices to sit on every case instead of one Chief Justice selecting particular justices to sit on particular cases? Is the Chief Justice not always appointed by a President? Is there not a possibility that a Chief Justice would want to empanel the Supreme Court to please those who appoint him or her as Chief Justice? Which other way is better than taking that prerogative from the Chief Justice and allow him or her to sit with all the other justices in every case if Ghana really wants non-interference of the executive in the cases?

We must also remember that Supreme Court decisions are laws of the land. If whatever decision is made by the Supreme Court is a law, why not have the legal views of all the justices on all matters that come to the court for us to have the best ruling in those matters instead of allowing only a few of the justices to make laws for us?


I am proud of NDC for coming out with the proposal to set an upper limit for the Supreme Court and make all the court’s justices to sit on every case that comes before the court. This proposal, if given effect, will eliminate the manipulation of the judiciary as we have experienced during Nana Akufo-Addo’s tenure as Ghana’s Attorney General. Never in the history of Ghana was the Supreme Court packed as during Nana Akufo-Addo’s tenure as Attorney General of Ghana. Also, never in the history of Ghana was a new justice appointed to the Supreme Court to go and overturn an earlier decision of the court as we have witnessed during Nana Akufo-Addo’s tenure as Ghana’s Attorney General. NDC is on the right path trying to block all the loopholes the NPP had exploited for political purposes.


2. NPP CHAIRMAN SAYS RAWLINGS MUST PROVE INNOCENCE


In a press conference to react to the euphoria that has followed the launch of the NDC Manifesto, and to certain alleged utterances of Ex-President Rawlings, NPP’s chairman, Mr. Peter Mac. Manu made a mess by pronouncing that Rawlings too was corrupt because he had failed to prove his innocence in the SCANCEM bribery case. I could not believe that Mr. Peter Manu made the said statement. What at all is wrong with these NPP people? Who told Mr. Peter Manu that an accused is required to prove his or her innocence while an accuser looks on? Did Mr. Peter Mac Manu not know that both in the law courts and in the courts of public opinion, where politicians are judged, an accused is not required to prove his or her innocence? In fact, in law courts of truly democratic countries, an accused does not even have to say a single word to be freed. It is only slightly different in politics where public opinion influences election results and destroys the reputation of politicians. Here, it is prudent for an accused to speak of his innocence in negative accusations against him by simply denying the accusation. Accusers may subsequently prove their allegations if they have proof.


Ex-President Rawlings passed this test when he was accused of having received bribes from SCANCEM. He immediately denied the story and challenged the government and any other agencies that would be interested to investigate the allegations as much as they wished and take him to court anywhere in the world if they found any proof of the bribery against him. It is ludicrous that Mr. Peter Mac Manu, who has been accused of having been jailed in the United States for drug trafficking without him even able to simply deny the story, is now saying someone had failed to prove his innocence. What about the allegations of drug use and drug dealing against Nana Akufo-Addo? Has he denied them yet? Even a simple denial, Nana Akufo-Addo could not make. It has been repeated a number of times on radio that Nana Akufo-Addo uses dangerous drugs and deals in illicit drugs. It has also been alleged that he has a lot of drug-dealing associates who are financing his presidential campaign. Close to one year since this allegations have been made, Nana Akufo-Addo has not been able to personally deny them.

Why does Peter Manu think that he is fooling Ghanaians when he and his presidential candidate have drug allegations hanging on their necks and they have arrogantly failed to tell Ghanaians the truth? Don’t they know that even in law courts a person’s failure to deny an allegation is allowed in evidence as the person’s admission of the allegations’ truth? So, why are these NPP accused making noise all over the place when we can reasonably conclude that they are drug dealers? I don’t blame them. I blame a media that is largely in bed with the NPP, or that is dominated by cowards who are failing in their responsibilities. I also blame the opposition that does not see that allegations of drug-use and drug dealing against a candidate in this year’s election are big issues that must be probed for answers. There are too many cowards in Ghana.


Dela, BISHOP


dela@bishop.com