All eyes are watching how the Supreme Court judges sitting on Election 2012 case will come out - bruised or unblemished. It is sad that the conduct of the judges on the bench have come under suspicion and intense criticism. Many a Ghanaian has come to the conclusion that the judges' actions and inactions seem to emanate from bias, incompetence, unprofessionalism, ignorance or timidity.
The Presiding Judge, Justice William Atuguba, is accused of exhibiting preposterous acts of unbridled bias emanating from deep-seated partisanship. Be that as it may, he has the obligatory responsibility to act professionally regardless of his personal sentiments, objectives and aspirations.
One wonders the essence of the other judges on the bench if they cannot share views on anything but to allow Justice Atuguba and the counsels for the respondents to do as like when they like.
If feel ashamed when some foreigners watching the live telecast pass derogatory comments about the whole process because of the irresponsible behaviours in display by some people in the court room be they spectators, lawyers or judges.
Anyway, the brouhaha about the auditing of the pink sheets with the subsequent allegations by Tsatsu Tsikata, Tony Lithur and Quarshie-Idun, counsels for the NDC, President Mahama and the Electoral Commission respectively, has come under condemnation. My legal brains laugh their head off and wonder what the judges are doing and if at all they are up to the task.
They say: 1. Were the entire 15 or so complete sets of 11,842+ photocopies with affidavits attached to each copy not delivered to the court registry for distribution to the various relevant parties?
2. Was the delivery not done at "one go"; the quantity checked and certified by the Court registrar?
3. Did the registrar not issue the courier (the delivery agent that could be NPP) a receipt attesting to how many boxes he/she has received?
4. Were the nine judges on the panel as individuals, and the respondents (President Mahama, Electoral Commission and the NDC) not each given a complete set of the 11,842 pink sheets?
5. Who was responsible for delivering and ensuring that each party mentioned in (4) was duly served their full copies?
6. Why are the counsels for the respondents claiming they did not receive their full sets of "X" number of boxes and so the NPP must be held responsible; treated as liars?
7. DID EACH OF THE JUDGES ON THE BENCH RECEIVE THEIR FULL SET?
8. Did the court receive their complete set?
9. Why would the judges and the court have received their full sets but not the respondents?
10. Why did the judges on the bench not order the pink sheets in the possession of the respondents to be audited but those of the court?
My legal brains conclude as following:
A. The court could not fully trust the assertion of shortfall in pink sheets delivered to the respondents as being bandied about. This is the more reason why they have not ordered the recount of the pink sheets delivered to the respondents but those in the possession of the court. In case the pink sheets in the court registry come up to 11842+ how will the respondents argue out their case of shortfall? Is it not the reason why they are insisting on there being seven foreign boxes spirited into the strong room of the court registry holding the pink sheets? Is it the number of pink sheets that is in contestation or the irregularities they contain?
B. The lies told will fly in the face of the respondents when the audit confirms that actually the petitioners submitted copies of the entire 11,842 pink sheets as claimed to the court registry.
C. The judges will be obliged at a point in time to confirm whether or not each one of them did receive their full share of 11,842 pink sheets. Why did the court and the respondents not receive their full sets if each of the judges did?
D. The judges should allow a question on why the counsels for the respondents or the Star witness (Johnson Asiedu Nketia) had arranged security officers of their own to proceed to man the strong room holding the pink sheets barely after the announcement that the pinks were to be audited. What prompted them to do that? Is their action not a suspect?
E. The fact that the respondents have dubiously been insisting on their own terms but finds it insurmountably having their way; they come up with all flimsy excuses. The judges must be clever enough to notice that. Why did they want to assign their own security to man the place?
F. As long as the judges can confirm they have complete sets, they should not allow the respondents to fool them unless the judges are fools themselves
G. The judges should not allow themselves to be dragged through the mud for a reason or the other. Their personal interests must be put aside as the whole world is watching them. They can either prove themselves and the Ghana judiciary more credible and worthy of their profession by exercising their duties to the spirit and letter of the ethics of the job. On the other hand, they can behave irresponsibly incredible as many at this stage think they are, to further tarnish their reputation.
H. The judges should be clever enough not to cede to the respondents' cunningness to win the case by resorting to technicalities. In the face of the overwhelming documentary proofs (hardcopies) supported by softcopy, there is no way that employment of "technicalities" can sail through. This is the catch the judges must watch themselves against.
In conclusion, nobody should castigate me for always holding my White legal brains in high esteem. They are very reasonable, responsible and more professional when it comes to the application and interpretation of the law. I do not intend to underestimate the intelligence of my own Ghanaian compatriots (judges) by always mentioning my White legal brains. It is only true that they excel better, and are more honest and professional in the dispensation of the law than my own Ghanaian compatriots.
Stay tuned for more "INFO" from that son of Kumawu/Asiampa. I shall continue to fight on behalf of the good people of Ghana no matter how the enemies of good who are the sons and daughters of evil perceive my actions.