Is the Supreme Court a Victim or Villain?

Read Comments Comments (15)

• Daniel K. Pryce 12 years ago

  Kofi,
  
  The one important thing that has emanated from this pivotal case being heard by the Supreme Court is the “rejuvenation” of the third arm of government – the judiciary. Suddenly, the much-ignored third arm of go ...
  read full comment

  Kofi,
  
  The one important thing that has emanated from this pivotal case being heard by the Supreme Court is the “rejuvenation” of the third arm of government – the judiciary. Suddenly, the much-ignored third arm of government, overlooked throughout our post-independence years, has been called upon to decide which party’s candidate has been duly elected president by the hoi polloi. This is an avant-garde phenomenon in our young democracy!
  
  In all of Ghana’s post-1957 administrations, the judiciary had either been silenced by an overly aggressive executive arm or relegated to a subordinate role, which is antithetical to the Constitutional tenet that all three branches of government be considered equal and independent of one another. But with despotic regimes taking a huge chunk of our post-independence years, could one expect anything different? Things have improved today, however, and this post-Election 2012 lawsuit has finally restored the legitimacy of Ghana’s courts, with the Supreme Court becoming the biggest beneficiary of this change in the tide of Ghana’s democracy.
  
  On the other hand, the Court has to be careful not to be seen as attempting to intimidate the citizenry, for the purported reason that one or another has made utterances that are considered prejudicial to the current post-election case being heard by the highest court of the land. The Court, because it has never before found itself in this “sacrosanct” position, is struggling to find a balance between its legitimate use of authority to keep people from making inflammatory statements and the illegal curtailment of the right to free speech enshrined in the Constitution. If, indeed, the Court, inadvertently or otherwise, is seen as curtailing free speech, then it would have overstepped its constitutional authority. I therefore call on Justice Atuguba and company to be careful about how they rule on citizen responses to the current post-election petition. It does not take very long to be slapped with the dictator tag in our modern, free world!
  
  Finally, it is important that this case be brought to a conclusion as soon as possible, as 7 months is simply too long a time to spend on a post-election petition. Just as this case unexpectedly has elevated the importance of the Ghanaian judiciary in our contemporary society, the eventual ruling would determine if, indeed, the judiciary deserves both the accolades and platitudes it has received so far. With responsibility comes duty, and with duty responsibility. Except in cases of unusually caustic attack on the justices hearing this case, no one should be sent to jail for exercising free speech, as there is a thin line between totalitarianism and egalitarianism.

  reply
• Nana Aba 12 years ago

  Well said Daniel. Nothing more to add to it - very balanced approach. We should remember that these contempt rulings will be the precedents for future cases and it sets a very dangerous trend when there are obvious procedural ...
  read full comment

  Well said Daniel. Nothing more to add to it - very balanced approach. We should remember that these contempt rulings will be the precedents for future cases and it sets a very dangerous trend when there are obvious procedural flaws which are over looked with the objective of silencing dissenting opinion. At the very least the contempt cases should be heard by a different panel - justice must be seen to be done.

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 12 years ago

  Daniel, you raised a very important matter on this debate. That is, the balance of power between the the three arms of governance (plus the fourth realm - the Media). It is absolutely crucial that Ghana gets the check and bal ...
  read full comment

  Daniel, you raised a very important matter on this debate. That is, the balance of power between the the three arms of governance (plus the fourth realm - the Media). It is absolutely crucial that Ghana gets the check and balances right because too much power concentrated in any one of the four is dangerous.
  
  Too powerful Executive as we have in Ghana at the moment makes the Legislature a mere rubber stamp and ineffective in ensuring that the Executive is accountable. At the same time, too powerful Legislature can bring the work of running Executive business to a halt and lead to crisis of governance. Equally, a very powerful but bias Judiciary could abuse its power potentially remove the Executive or unnecessarily rule against a weak Executive, make it unpopular and finally be voted out of office. In such situations, the Judiciary become power brokers and threaten democracy since they may use their powers to undermine governments they do not share ideology with. Finally, a very powerful media could threaten the Executive, Legislature and even the Judiciary. For example, here in the UK when the Murdoch Newspaper Editors became too powerful even Prime Ministers, Ministers and MPs were scared of them. They did their bidding in order to gain public support until the phone scandal.
  
  In short, this petition should neither make one of the four stronger or weaker but rather it should assist in finding the right balance in order to strengthen the checks and balances on each other, though if the Judiciary is strong and truly independent that could be better.

  reply
• Wiafe 12 years ago

  The punishment meted to Kuranche and the others is a small price to pay for the court's message to finally hit home.
  
  There is too much "noise" in the political space. The Judiciary seems to be finally waking up--and I hop ...
  read full comment

  The punishment meted to Kuranche and the others is a small price to pay for the court's message to finally hit home.
  
  There is too much "noise" in the political space. The Judiciary seems to be finally waking up--and I hope parliament follows.
  
  Hopefully, this petition and the potential for conflict may finally get the 3 branches of government to function well.

  reply
• PEE 12 years ago

  GHANA SUPREME COURT HAS RESTORED MY HOPE FOR THE COUNTRY!
  THANK YOU SC
  THOSE JOURNALIST ARE. JUST FEW BUNCH OF AROGANTS WE WILL NOT TAKE NOTICE OF THEM
  WE THE VOICELESS ARE MANY

  GHANA SUPREME COURT HAS RESTORED MY HOPE FOR THE COUNTRY!
  THANK YOU SC
  THOSE JOURNALIST ARE. JUST FEW BUNCH OF AROGANTS WE WILL NOT TAKE NOTICE OF THEM
  WE THE VOICELESS ARE MANY

  reply
• Yaw Amofa 12 years ago

  Kofi Ata eei, if you are a real man with penis and two balls, come to Ghana and challenge the court. Don't hide in UK.

  Kofi Ata eei, if you are a real man with penis and two balls, come to Ghana and challenge the court. Don't hide in UK.

  reply
• KWADWO OWUSU 12 years ago

  Kofi:
  
  What is not so definite about a "ban" that stipulates that Sammy Awuku, who had become a fixture at the Supreme Court since the beginning of this trial, should not attend court proceedings again. That is, in so far a ...
  read full comment

  Kofi:
  
  What is not so definite about a "ban" that stipulates that Sammy Awuku, who had become a fixture at the Supreme Court since the beginning of this trial, should not attend court proceedings again. That is, in so far as this petition is alive and running, Sammy Awuku is banned from entering the courtroom. The duration of his ban is certain and unambiguous. Therefore, the Supreme Court did nothing wrong.

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 12 years ago

  KWADWO, I totally disagree with you that the duration of Awuku's sentence is certain and unambiguous. Could you tell anyone with certainty when (date) the petition hearing will end, let alone, when the Justices will give thei ...
  read full comment

  KWADWO, I totally disagree with you that the duration of Awuku's sentence is certain and unambiguous. Could you tell anyone with certainty when (date) the petition hearing will end, let alone, when the Justices will give their final verdict? The answer is unambiguous No. In fact, the Justices themselves do not know that date. For this reason, I am still of the view that his sentence was indeterminate and unfair. Even some life sentences have definite minimum period of time that they have to serve and not open ended incarceration.

  reply
• komlnyarko 12 years ago

  Kofi, what's the conclusion of your piece? Why do you always find it so difficult to declare your stand on topics you comment on? You cannot always be against and for a case at the same time. Regards.

  Kofi, what's the conclusion of your piece? Why do you always find it so difficult to declare your stand on topics you comment on? You cannot always be against and for a case at the same time. Regards.

  reply
• Okonko Palm 12 years ago

  Finally the SC has put its foot down and drummed some hard facts into the body politics of Ghana.In the first place this hard facts had been long overdue and as rightly seen due the courts initial approach to take control of ...
  read full comment

  Finally the SC has put its foot down and drummed some hard facts into the body politics of Ghana.In the first place this hard facts had been long overdue and as rightly seen due the courts initial approach to take control of the court room and public intemperance.
  
  Having said that there was a conflict of competing claims which needed addressing.The right to free speech and the integrity and dignity of the of the courts.Should free speech be at the expense of the courts and wont that undermine the authority of the courts and hence public order.
  
  The impression is being giving that freedom of speech is absolute and therefore unqualified.That is far from the truth since it is in competition with other rights which society and the courts have a duty to balance in order to achieve fairness. Otherwise there will be chaos and I hope we are not advocating for that.
  
  In practice therefore the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and that right is commonly subject to limitations.Until we in Ghana begin to realize this hard facts the simmering tragedy beckoning will surely come to pass.
  
  That is why I support the courts for finally cracking the whip and bringing some sanity into the system.I am glad it has the support of the GBA and even the lead counsels of all the parties in the suit and hence the political parties as their joint statements indicated.

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 12 years ago

  Okonko, I am not a lawyer but my understanding of case law regarding this difficult and sometimes controversial words contempt of court is that, it's not only the impact of the spoken or written language used but the intentio ...
  read full comment

  Okonko, I am not a lawyer but my understanding of case law regarding this difficult and sometimes controversial words contempt of court is that, it's not only the impact of the spoken or written language used but the intention of the user is also very important. The question is, did those guys intended to bring the court into disrepute or influence the court at the time of using those words or language? At best, I believe the impact would have been preparing the minds of the supporters of NDC and NPP to reject the final verdict of the Justices if it did not go in their favour.
  
  
  I agree that freedom of expression and free press are not absolute rights but at the same I am concerned about the approach taken by the Justices. Was Mr Kuranchie given a custodial sentence because he was defiant initially by attempting to defend his action (though the defence was abysmal)? Does that mean the Justices expected no defence from those who appear before them for contempt of court? Though,I am aware that once a court has given a warning of contempt of court, those who appeare before for contempt of court charged thereafter are guilty as charged and could be sentenced, I am of the view that the custodial sentence could not be justified if it was simply because the accused was not remorseful. If that was the case then Mr Atugiba, unfortunately became a victim of Ken Kuranchie's stubbornness. I expected some sanction but not a custodial one and I hope it brings the expected discipline but not fear of freedom of expression and free press. That would be very unfortunate.

  reply
• Okonko Palm 12 years ago

  Kofi,check up and you will find out that criminal contempt is a strict liability offense and therefore intent is not needed.Check your strict liability act of 1981 on contempt.
  
  Strict liability contempt
  
  Under the Contem ...
  read full comment

  Kofi,check up and you will find out that criminal contempt is a strict liability offense and therefore intent is not needed.Check your strict liability act of 1981 on contempt.
  
  Strict liability contempt
  
  Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 it is criminal contempt of court to publish anything which creates a real risk that the course of justice in proceedings may be seriously impaired.
  
  Section 2 of the Act limits the common law presumption that conduct may be treated as contempt regardless of intention: now only cases where there is a substantial risk of serious prejudice to a trial are affected.

  reply
• LONTO-BOY 12 years ago

  MASSA KOFI, it is clear the Judiciary has 'rediscovered' its powers through the on-going proceedings at Supreme Court. I think bringing contempt proceedings to Sammy Awuku, Kuranchie and Atubiga is necessary in the Public int ...
  read full comment

  MASSA KOFI, it is clear the Judiciary has 'rediscovered' its powers through the on-going proceedings at Supreme Court. I think bringing contempt proceedings to Sammy Awuku, Kuranchie and Atubiga is necessary in the Public interest. The statements of the NPP, NDC activists and the publication by the journalist have indeed, interfered with the course of justice and scandalised the Supreme Court. As much as the SC has to be mindful not to stifle 'freedom of expression', it is prudent in the light of the on-going proceedings to restrain irresponsible journalists and partisan political activists while maintaining the authority, impartiality, dignity and integrity of the Supreme Court.
  
  Personally, I think lost in the criticism of the Supreme Court's perceived 'attack' on Freedom of Expression is the ineffective National Media Commission. Freedom of Expression and Free Press as enshrined in our Constitution carry with them Duties and Responsibilities. Free Speech and Free Press should not be taken as carte blanche to publish any prejudicial material or make disparaging statements scandalising the SC.
  
  The National Media Commission has failed to play a critical role, here. It has failed to control the country's media. This has allowed the media houses to throw caution to the wind. However, I'm of the view that the SC and the NMC should have issued advisory notice to all media houses from the on set of the petition so as to maintain its dignity, impartiality and integrity.

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 12 years ago

  My good brother, this piece was submitted to Ghanaweb on Monday so I had no idea what was about to happen the next day. In other words, the contents are almost become obsolete after yesterday's drama.
  
  I could not agree wit ...
  read full comment

  My good brother, this piece was submitted to Ghanaweb on Monday so I had no idea what was about to happen the next day. In other words, the contents are almost become obsolete after yesterday's drama.
  
  I could not agree with you more on the failure of the National Media Commission in its role to regulate the media in Ghana. It's either unwilling or incapable of regulating the media. I really do not know which is which but do not believe this has nothing to do with lack of resources or lack of legal authority to act. If the NMC is capable and able to do its work effectively, some of the media house in Ghana would have gone out business long time ago through libel and defamation litigation. There would have been disciplined and effective self regulation of the media by now.
  
  I pray and hope that the highhanded approach by the Justices would not truncate freedom of expression and free press as claimed by Prof Kwame Karikari. That would be sad.

  reply
• Whatever 12 years ago

  Which villain as a character will warn a person before it pounces? The latest assertiveness of the supreme court, its mandate and so forth is derived from the law. It is the law which is working. Allow the Law to WORK. Is con ...
  read full comment

  Which villain as a character will warn a person before it pounces? The latest assertiveness of the supreme court, its mandate and so forth is derived from the law. It is the law which is working. Allow the Law to WORK. Is contempt not an offense punishable with a sentence? didn't the supreme court warn us all? What is this circumlocution?

  reply