Get this Kwesi Pratt: The Chief Justice Sits Above ...

Read Comments Comments (15)

• rkt 12 years ago

  i find the article most insightful, never mind that it is mind-boggling how merely disagreeing to a decision by the cj can cause political tension! this though, should be no licence to throw muck at kwesi, a journalist and co ...
  read full comment

  i find the article most insightful, never mind that it is mind-boggling how merely disagreeing to a decision by the cj can cause political tension! this though, should be no licence to throw muck at kwesi, a journalist and commentator par excellence! 'member what alex haley said? ...."there is no mountain without valleys!" so, yes kwesi may be wrong, but that does not diminish him in any way. it is testimony that we are mere mortals and fallible! i salute u but p'se hold urself in check! and to kwesi, a low, low bow. soldier on. we love u

  reply
• rkt 12 years ago

  have re-read the article and am of the view that the truths that kwesi has told in the past have been hell 2 u so u have been spoiling for a fight with him and found the opportunity in his views on the tv or no tv!
  why do i ...
  read full comment

  have re-read the article and am of the view that the truths that kwesi has told in the past have been hell 2 u so u have been spoiling for a fight with him and found the opportunity in his views on the tv or no tv!
  why do i think so? .....get this kwesi!, ...the all knowing kwesi, ....do his homework b4 triggering his trademark salvos!
  can we liken the s/court to a board(of directors)?

  reply
• rkt 12 years ago

  i find the article most insightful, never mind that it is mind-boggling how merely disagreeing to a decision by the cj can cause political tension! this though, should be no licence to throw muck at kwesi, a journalist and co ...
  read full comment

  i find the article most insightful, never mind that it is mind-boggling how merely disagreeing to a decision by the cj can cause political tension! this though, should be no licence to throw muck at kwesi, a journalist and commentator par excellence! 'member what alex haley said? ...."there is no mountain without valleys!" so, yes kwesi may be wrong, but that does not diminish him in any way. it is testimony that we are mere mortals and fallible! i salute u but p'se hold urself in check! and to kwesi, a low, low bow. soldier on. we love u

  reply
• Facebook lawyer 12 years ago

  You clearly misrepresented Kwesi Pratt just to insult his intelligence and portray him as evil. The first decision was taken in court not to allow cameras in there. That is the reason why it was reviewed in court and a ruling ...
  read full comment

  You clearly misrepresented Kwesi Pratt just to insult his intelligence and portray him as evil. The first decision was taken in court not to allow cameras in there. That is the reason why it was reviewed in court and a ruling was made even though it was cosmetic. Please if you have your opinion different from his just express it and not behave like you are the expert and right. You are all expressing your view points so stop warning him. Too known!

  reply
• Luc 12 years ago

  Nii lantey,I think you got the import of Kwesi pratt's argument wrong.Kwesi's assertion is not whether the CJ had administrative authority to allow the TV into the courts or not because that is basically her administrative au ...
  read full comment

  Nii lantey,I think you got the import of Kwesi pratt's argument wrong.Kwesi's assertion is not whether the CJ had administrative authority to allow the TV into the courts or not because that is basically her administrative authority but how it was done.Once the CJ allowed the Supreme to make a judicial decision in court not to allow the tv in court it becomes a legal decision which is then beyond the administrative cure of the CJ.Fortunately, the SC is capable of reversing its own decision as enjoined under the constitution and this is exactly what the supreme did.The matter was formally raised in the court in the proper way and there was a vote to reverse their decision which was unanimous and therefore their earlier decision was reversed.If that had not been done the CJ would have acted ultra vires or beyond her powers which can not be legally sustained.If the SC had not the right to reverse its own decision,then it would need a judicial review to cure the wrong.The administrative powers of public figures is not subject to abuse under the prerogative powers of the constitution and the CJ is no exception.Even the president is not immuned from the prerogative powers because it is only under this powers that the president can be sent to court.

  reply
• Tony Dee NY 12 years ago

  If indeed the CJ is above the Administrative duties of the Supreme Court then why should he be held accountable for administrative blonder. He is the head of the Sureme Court administration but not above the Supreme Court. No ...
  read full comment

  If indeed the CJ is above the Administrative duties of the Supreme Court then why should he be held accountable for administrative blonder. He is the head of the Sureme Court administration but not above the Supreme Court. No one is above the rule of the Nation's law. Please stop creating gods amoung us.

  reply
• John Carslake 12 years ago

  The article which gave rise to this comment was very clear. The CJ is responsible for the overall administration of the justice system to enable courts to be convened and sit to consider matters brought before them. The CJ ha ...
  read full comment

  The article which gave rise to this comment was very clear. The CJ is responsible for the overall administration of the justice system to enable courts to be convened and sit to consider matters brought before them. The CJ has no influence over the legal decisions made by the
  courts.

  reply
• LOL 12 years ago

  4GOT KWESI PRATT. HE THINKS HE KNOWS TOOO BETTER

  4GOT KWESI PRATT. HE THINKS HE KNOWS TOOO BETTER

  reply
• Kwobia-Toronto 12 years ago

  Televising the petition has been a great coup
  For the people.No secrecy.

  Televising the petition has been a great coup
  For the people.No secrecy.

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 12 years ago

  Nii, I agree with you that the Chief Justice was right to allow the live broadcast of the presidential petition. However, I am not sure if the Chief Justice is above administrative matters of the judiciary. She has the final ...
  read full comment

  Nii, I agree with you that the Chief Justice was right to allow the live broadcast of the presidential petition. However, I am not sure if the Chief Justice is above administrative matters of the judiciary. She has the final say and her final decision/s must be within the confines of the laws of Ghana (Constitution) and that tells me that the Chief Justice is not above.
  
  I also do not share the view that decision making should be based on consensus. Democracy is about consensus but leadership is about conviction and therefore even if public opinion was against live broadcast but the Chief Justice was convinced that it was the right thing to do for Ghana, then she should make that decision. That is leadership.
  
  I am not sure if your comparism with regional leaders and the Chief Executive fits this example because the Supreme Court Justices are not at lower courts (such as Appeal or High Court Judges). There is no need for such analysis because and as you rightly concluded, the Chief Justice has the overall administrative responsibility for the judiciary in Ghana. Full stop.
  
  My only problem with the Chief Justice on the petition is her failure to preside over the hearing because in her view, she could be seen as biased because her sister is married to a leading member of the NPP. This case was an opportunity for her to have proved that she as the Chief Justice of the land, is above partisan politics in Ghana.

  reply
• torgbui Avaklasu I 12 years ago

  You are rather misinforming the public with your rather jaundiced explanations. Did you hear the decision of the Pannel of judges sitting on the petition case?
  It was a RULING of the supreme court that they hearing is not he ...
  read full comment

  You are rather misinforming the public with your rather jaundiced explanations. Did you hear the decision of the Pannel of judges sitting on the petition case?
  It was a RULING of the supreme court that they hearing is not held in the glare of the cameras. The questions is can the Chief Justice over turn a ruling of the supreme court whose decision is not eve subject to a review by any court let alone an individual who in this case is the Chief Justice. This is the position of Kwesi Pratt and not your rather clouded brain trying to misinform the public.

  reply
• STONER KOBYLYNTON 12 years ago

  Torgbue, What the writer is pointing out to Mr Pratt is that in administrative issues, The CJ's decision is the final and when it comes to legal issues the final decision comes by the judges vote backed with their writings to ...
  read full comment

  Torgbue, What the writer is pointing out to Mr Pratt is that in administrative issues, The CJ's decision is the final and when it comes to legal issues the final decision comes by the judges vote backed with their writings to the ruling. The question of cameras in court is not legal issue but rather administrative decision which the CJ can come out with any alternative. E&OE

  reply
• Whatever 12 years ago

  The chief justice is part of the supreme court so how can she sit above it? She's only one of the 13 justices of the supreme court and chief only in the sense of judicial administration. Incredible ignorance from this writer

  The chief justice is part of the supreme court so how can she sit above it? She's only one of the 13 justices of the supreme court and chief only in the sense of judicial administration. Incredible ignorance from this writer

  reply
• Sirle 12 years ago

  I think the analogy drawn here is completely out of order. The CJ roles cannot be compared to a CEO role. That is out-rightly wrong to premise your argument. All the Supreme court justices have equal status from the perspecti ...
  read full comment

  I think the analogy drawn here is completely out of order. The CJ roles cannot be compared to a CEO role. That is out-rightly wrong to premise your argument. All the Supreme court justices have equal status from the perspective of the constitution which is the law of the land. The CJ cannot veto on any of the substantive issues the court may be debating to decide on. Rather they put it to voting which is what the highest court of the land always do. That is the normal norm. So I differ on all your loud insinuations.

  reply