Is Law Really “Immaterial”?

What Went Through The Minds Of Justice Adinyira And Others Who Decided The Election Petition?

By Otchere Darko

Reference: “What Ghanaians need to do is to shun and shame the growing violence that has come about as a result of irresponsible, impudent, disrespectful and chauvinistic persons, whose unguarded utterances, and machinations at times bordering on treason are causing disunity in this our dear country all in the name of politics.” [Ghanaweb General News of Saturday, 7 September 2013, Captioned “Law is immaterial”, Justice Adinyira; Source: Daily Guide

When I saw the headline “Law is immaterial”, which, allegedly, formed the basis on which Justice Adinyira arrived at the decisions she took concerning the recent Supreme Court verdict on the just-concluded NPP challenge of the declaration of President Mahama as winner of the last presidential election, I was struck by its [seeming] ‘incorrectness’ and wanted to know what the learned Supreme Court judge really said and meant.

While going through the full text of the news report by Daily Guide, I came across the quote under reference above, which, reportedly, was part of the judgement of ‘Her Learned Judge’, (HLJ) Justice Adinyira. This bit of the learned lawyer’s judgement, rather than the headline, gave me ample scope for worrying thoughts.

*When judges rule on cases, they are required to write full judgement to explain how they arrive at the decisions they make. According to Daily Guide, the quotation under reference above formed part of “the 77-page judgement of Justice Sophia O. Adinyira, one of the judges who dismissed all the claims brought by the petitioners in the just-concluded landmark Presidential Election Petition”.

*It will be safe for a lay man to assume that when writing his or her judgement, a judge will be literally ‘remapping’ the full ‘mental journey’ taken by him or her before reaching the final decision or decisions he or she makes concerning cases before him or her for adjudication. *Given that this statement is NOT FALSE, one may beg to ask:--

Were the nine Supreme Court Justices asked to decide the presidential election challenge in addition to “irresponsible, impudent, disrespectful and chauvinistic persons, whose unguarded utterances, and machinations at times bordering on treason are causing disunity in this our dear country all in the name of politics”? Did “shunning and shaming” of “irresponsible, impudent, disrespectful and chauvinistic persons”, whose unguarded utterances, and machinations at times border on treason cross their (the judges’) minds when they were deliberating on, or deciding the petition?

IN OTHER WORDS [AND MORE PRECISELY], DID ALL NINE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES LIMIT THEMSELVES TO CONSIDERATIONS OF ONLY THE EVIDENCE THAT CONCERNED THE CHALLENGE, OR DID THEY [OR ANY OF THEM] INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY ALLOW THE BEHAVIOUR OF “IRRESPONSIBLE, IMPUDENT, DISRESPECTFUL AND CHAUVINISTIC PERSONS” TO CLOUD, OR INFLUENCE THE VERDICT THEY REACHED CONCERNING THE ELECTION PETITION?

The answer to this question is only important as a test case for law lecturers and students, thanks to Nana Akufo-Addo and all Ghanaian peace-lovers whose decision, prayers and counselling helped to stop the case from going to the judicial review stage.