The Search for Justice

Read Comments Comments (11)

• Kwobia,Toronto 12 years ago

  Sorry,but I do not follow your argument or desitation.

  Sorry,but I do not follow your argument or desitation.

  reply
• Kojo T 12 years ago

  1.somebody who sees occurrence: somebody who gives evidence after seeing or hearing something
  2.signatory of document: somebody who signs a document to show that it, or another signature, is genuine
  3.somebody who testifies ...
  read full comment

  1.somebody who sees occurrence: somebody who gives evidence after seeing or hearing something
  2.signatory of document: somebody who signs a document to show that it, or another signature, is genuine
  3.somebody who testifies . a. One who can give a firsthand account of something seen, heard, or experienced: a witness to the accident. b. One who furnishes evidence.
  NOw how many actual witnesses did NPP bring to court. FIRSTHAND WITNESS . Bawumia was making analysis and was NOT a witness Remember , "you and I were not there?' So how could he testify to what he did not witness?

  reply
• Chabba 12 years ago

  Of course, Ata Kofi is an ignoramus of LAW so why waste time with your brilliant legal brain on such a sick-minded idiot?

  Of course, Ata Kofi is an ignoramus of LAW so why waste time with your brilliant legal brain on such a sick-minded idiot?

  reply
• BRO DAN- TRC 12 years ago

  BLESSED PEOPLE OF AFRICA, REPUTABLE ONES OF THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD, INNOCENT PEOPLE OF GHANA, -FREEDOM IS GOD GIVEN AND IS OF GOD. AND GOD IS -A JUST GOD. THEREFORE, CAN THERE NEVER BE -FREEDOM- WITHOUT, -JUSTICE; HENCE, -" ...
  read full comment

  BLESSED PEOPLE OF AFRICA, REPUTABLE ONES OF THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD, INNOCENT PEOPLE OF GHANA, -FREEDOM IS GOD GIVEN AND IS OF GOD. AND GOD IS -A JUST GOD. THEREFORE, CAN THERE NEVER BE -FREEDOM- WITHOUT, -JUSTICE; HENCE, -"FREEDOM AND JUSTICE", FOR ALL NATIONS, PEOPLE, COLOUR AND TONGUE. WHY? -"FOR GOD SO LOVED -THE WORLD-....", AND NOT 'A NATION, A PEOPLE, A RACE, COLOUR OR TONGUE'. FOR "IN THE BEGINNING" GOD MADE MAN; MALE AND FEMALE AND CALLED THEIR NAME- "ADAM". WHY? GOD IS NO -RESPECTER- OF PERSON. SELAH. THEREFORE, "FREEDOM AND JUSTICE" FOR -ALL- MANKIND. PULSE. NOW, LET MY PEOPLE THINK. FOR "IT IS FINISHED" THEREFORE, "OCCUPY TILL I COME". SELAH.
  TOGETHER, WE CAN! WITH GOD, WE CAN!! GOD BLESS AFRICA TO "BE STRONG AND OF GOOD COURAGE" TO BY- JUSTICE- "SEEK PEACE AND PURSUE IT" FOR -THE FREEDOM- OF HER DIGNIFIED PEOPLE. GOD BLESS ALL PEOPLE, BODIES, INSTITUTIONS, ORGANIZATION IN CHARGE OF ENSURING -JUSTICE- FOR HUMANITY TO "BE STRONG AND OF GOOD COURAGE" AND "OCCUPY TILL" THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD AND HUMANITY COME TO THE OUR -GOD GIVEN FREEDOM. GOD BLESS YOUR NATION AND PEOPLE AS YOU BY -JUTICE- SEEK THE -FREEDOM- OF THE DIGNIFIED PEOPLE OF YOUR NATION AND ALL FELLOW HUMANS. AND, GOD BLESS OUR HOMELAND GHANA.

  reply
• Nii Ashitey 12 years ago

  What a pathetic explanation of a botch judgement and what does this writer think she is doing.In fact she has not explained anything if anything at all she has ended up not only confusing herself but those she portends to be ...
  read full comment

  What a pathetic explanation of a botch judgement and what does this writer think she is doing.In fact she has not explained anything if anything at all she has ended up not only confusing herself but those she portends to be educating.
  
  I am not sure whether this writer knows the difference between constitutional law and the law of contract where restitution is usually the preferred outcome and constitutional interpretation or construction, the process by which meanings are assigned to words in a constitution, to enable legal decisions to be made that are justified by it.Kofi Ata of Cambridge needn’t have formally read law to understand whether these judges in his opinion lived up to expectation because he is a very intelligent man.And all it takes to understand these judgements is intelligence and not law per se.
  
  There is an on going debate by scholars like Kofi Ata that those judges in the minority used a too restrictive and narrow approach to constitutional interpretation instead of the more acceptable purposive and expansive approach which gives meaning to both the spirit and letter of the law.By failing to use the right methodology they got their conclusions wrong.
  
  One would have wished that Abigail had tackled the subject in a way that would have shared light on the ongoing debate.Instead she came up with a meaningless lecture that was both unhelpful and confusing.The question being asked by ordinary readers are couldn’t the mischief of a presiding officers not signing the pink sheet be resolved by mandamus and the clerical errors and mistakes in arithmetic be resolved by the revise rules.Anyhow how can a constitutional duty to perform be weightier than a fundamental right to vote.This questions will keep popping up by academics like Kofi Ata, lawyers and social commentators who are interested in how our law works and the performance of our judges.

  reply
• Kobena 12 years ago

  Interesting piece, Abigail,
  I look forward to part two!

  Interesting piece, Abigail,
  I look forward to part two!

  reply
• G. K. Berko 12 years ago

  Well, we all could wait for the next piece to bring home the Writer's point. But so far, I could see futility looming over her exercise.
  
  We must also register our passionate protest to the Writer's suggestion that one' s ...
  read full comment

  Well, we all could wait for the next piece to bring home the Writer's point. But so far, I could see futility looming over her exercise.
  
  We must also register our passionate protest to the Writer's suggestion that one' s lack of Academic Law Degrees precludes that person from making an intelligent observation on a Legal case. We may have to remind her that even though it's most advisable to seek a professional legal counsel for cases, some folks without Legal background or Counsel have argued their cases in the Courts successfully.
  
  Furthermore, not all cases take the same depths of Legal knowledge to adjudicate. We even used to have Magistrates without Professional and Academic Legal background appointed to sit on Court Cases. Could she tell us why?
  
  We all know that certain rulings by some Judges do not necessarily need specially trained Legal minds to evaluate correctly. So, please, if the Writer believes the 4 mentioned Justices do not deserve the negative perception painted on them, she has to show the readers adequate and factual bases for that, instead of attacking Mr. Atta's lack of Legal background.
  
  Long Live Ghana!!!

  reply
• Kojo T 12 years ago

  What about a jury? Do they have legal academic qualifications

  What about a jury? Do they have legal academic qualifications

  reply
• G. K. Berko 12 years ago

  Exactly! Jurors need not have any Legal training whatsoever! How could the writer overlook that?
  
  If any of the Petitioners feels discontent with the verdict, the door is still open for review. We need to learn enduring le ...
  read full comment

  Exactly! Jurors need not have any Legal training whatsoever! How could the writer overlook that?
  
  If any of the Petitioners feels discontent with the verdict, the door is still open for review. We need to learn enduring lessons from the case, not recreate 'what-should-have-been' setting to justify untenable positions in the case.
  
  Long Live Ghana!!!

  reply
• Paul Amuna 12 years ago

  Your attempt to undermine our intelligence and to 'elevate' the named justices smacks of hypocrisy. It is also quite curious that you should be questioning Mr Ata's understanding of the law and his interpretation of what has ...
  read full comment

  Your attempt to undermine our intelligence and to 'elevate' the named justices smacks of hypocrisy. It is also quite curious that you should be questioning Mr Ata's understanding of the law and his interpretation of what has transpired in court.
  
  First of all let me remind you that it is not the preserve of "legally trained" or lawyers to understand and / or be able to interpret the constitution, nor is it their preserve to appreciate and understand the technicalities of the law.
  
  Secondly, let me remind you that even though Mr Ata (in his modesty) has always sought to make it clear that he is not a lawyer by profession, his understanding of the law and his ability to articulate complex legal matters for the understanding and education of the lay public must be commended. Add to that the fact that many lawyers cannot do what he does in this regard and indeed many are those who profess to be "professors of law" and "experts in constitutional law who have made a complete mess of the proceedings in the SC case.
  
  The majority of them have been tainted by their party and personal biases (just as those justices of the supreme court) and have made a very poor showing on their interpretation and discussion of the legal matters here in my opinion.
  
  Whilst we are on the subject, even if you disagree with Mr Ata's view point and his analysis, why not take it point by point and provide a counter, insightful and cogent argument so we the readers can see your viewpoint and also give you feedback.
  
  The arrogance that people like you show, by somehow trying to tell the whole world that certain areas are 'no-go' areas for others and that they are the preserve of the 'privileged few' who happen to have sat in a certain classroom and got a certain certificate and been registered as 'belonging to a particular professional class' is crass, to say the least.
  
  I condemn it wholeheartedly, just as I would, those doctors who think that they are the ONLY ones who understand disease processes and refuse to listen even to what the patient (who may have lived with a disease like diabetes for a long time, and who know and understand their condition better) has to say!!!
  
  For your information, Mr Ata has provided more sinightful, useful and educative contributions to ghanaweb than you would ever care to do and I rather admire his 'bravery' to take on such technical subjects as the law and research the topics and provide interesting commentary for the general public.
  
  Be reminded that apart from anything else, this, is NOT an academic, technical or scientific forum for a few. You must therefore look elsewhere for your condemnation of others.
  
  If we were all to write technical articles on our fields of expertise, few would care to read them, let alone learn anything from them.
  
  I'd much rather we kept it that way so that you the 'legally endowed' can write your intellectual pieces in the law journals just as we medics write ours in the medical journals!!! As a case in point, my colleagues and I have an article being published in the Ghana medical journal on a subject that you will not understand. Why is it not published here instead?
  
  Let me also add that the justices in question displayed serious biases in their rulings and their interpretation of the Ghana constitution leaves much to be desired. Yesterday, one fine contributor Benjamin from Canberra, Australia wrote a very fine piece on ghanaweb on the very subject of the use (or misuse, my own emphasis) of words like SHALL in hiding behind their 'dodgy interpretations of the law and their rulings. Perhaps you would care to read it.
  
  By the way, it is you who expose your ignorance if you do not know the difference between BODMAS and BIDMAS in arithmetic (not mathematical) parlance although I am happy to ignore that and assume that it was a typographical error on your part (don't we all make such mistakes?).
  
  Please know that there are daft people who write on ghanaweb but equally there are fine contributors here, one of whom is Mr Ata and rather than 'shoot him down', I suggest we commend him for his efforts.

  reply
• LONTO-BOY 12 years ago

  Abigail, it is worth bearing in mind that there are two sides to an argument. You might not approve of Mr Kofi Ata's own thoughts, reasoning and analysis of the Supreme Court judgement or his critical examination of the Disse ...
  read full comment

  Abigail, it is worth bearing in mind that there are two sides to an argument. You might not approve of Mr Kofi Ata's own thoughts, reasoning and analysis of the Supreme Court judgement or his critical examination of the Dissenting Justices. However, I think you could have delivered this educative piece or a critique of Mr Kofi Ata's article without being overly condescending.
  
  You might be a prominent Legal Analysis Expert or fairly knowledgeable about Law matters but given that this is "Ghanaweb", and not a "Legal Blog Watch", I suggest you present your perspectives without being overly condescending. After all, Kofi is entitled to his viewpoint just as you're to your superior legal perspective.

  reply