Matters arising out of the Muntie Gang’s gbeshie

Read Comments Comments (7)

• PRINCEWILLY@YMAIL.COM 9 years ago

  In a trial, in a small SC town, a prosecuting attorney called his first witness to the stand. She was sworn in, asked if she would tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, on the Bible, so help her God. The ...
  read full comment

  In a trial, in a small SC town, a prosecuting attorney called his first witness to the stand. She was sworn in, asked if she would tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, on the Bible, so help her God. The witness was a proper well-dressed elderly lady, the grandmother type, well-spoken and poised.
  
  The prosecuting attorney approached the woman and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know me?" She responded, "Why, yes I do know you, Mr. Williams. I've known you since you were a young boy and frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me. You lie, cheat on your wife, manipulate people and talk badly about them behind their backs. You think you're a rising big shot when you haven't the sense to realize you never will amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pushing shyster. Yes, I know you quite well."
  
  The lawyer was stunned and slowly backed away, fearing the looks on the judge's and jurors' faces, not to mention the court reporter who documented every word. Not knowing what else to do, he pointed across the room and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney?" She again replied, "Why, yes, I do. I've known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster, too. He's lazy, bigoted, and has a bad drinking problem. The man can't build or keep a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women. Yes, I know him."
  
  The defense attorney almost fainted and was seen slipping downward in his chair, looking at the floor. Laughter, mixed with gasps, thundered throughout the court room and the audience was on the verge of chaos.
  
  At this point, the judge brought the courtroom to silence, called both counselors to the bench, and in a very quiet voice said, "If either of you crooked bastards asks her if she knows me, you'll be jailed for contempt."

  reply
• Constable Joy 9 years ago

  PLS PRINCE THIS JOKE IS TOO GOOD.

  PLS PRINCE THIS JOKE IS TOO GOOD.

  reply
• SAY IT LOUD 9 years ago

  This piece quotes references that tend to show that the apex court is usurping undeserved powers. To be fair reference on the adjudication of contempt cases involving Ken Kuranchie and other suspects were not challenged. I am ...
  read full comment

  This piece quotes references that tend to show that the apex court is usurping undeserved powers. To be fair reference on the adjudication of contempt cases involving Ken Kuranchie and other suspects were not challenged. I am not a lawyer but it stands to reason that the same yard-stick must be applied in the case of the Montie gang.

  reply
• nana addo 9 years ago

  Jail them and the flood gates will be opened.
  By November 7th all the Npp acolytes will have been jailed using the same precedence.
  Good beginning to bring sanity to radio stations

  Jail them and the flood gates will be opened.
  By November 7th all the Npp acolytes will have been jailed using the same precedence.
  Good beginning to bring sanity to radio stations

  reply
• Okonko Palm 9 years ago

  There is always a place for contempt of court in any civilized jurisdiction not only to enforce court orders but also to maintain public confidence in the judicial system since the administration of justice will be undermined ...
  read full comment

  There is always a place for contempt of court in any civilized jurisdiction not only to enforce court orders but also to maintain public confidence in the judicial system since the administration of justice will be undermined if the orders of the court is disregarded with impunity.
  
  However contempt proceedings must be invoked sparingly.For example in this case these people could be charged under the criminal law sparing the court time to do other things.Threat is a criminal offense and these culprits must come under that.
  
  This is purely a case of threat.It did not in any way way interfere with the administration of justice since the accuse persons breach no court orders but may have committed the offense of threat which could be handled by law enforcement.

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 9 years ago

  Good morning Azar. I know we had similar debates during the presidential petition hearing and on that occasion I disagreed with you. Though I am not a fan of Relativism, sometimes the indiscipline and lawlessness in Ghana are ...
  read full comment

  Good morning Azar. I know we had similar debates during the presidential petition hearing and on that occasion I disagreed with you. Though I am not a fan of Relativism, sometimes the indiscipline and lawlessness in Ghana are such that I tempted to become a victim of Relativism. I am also of the view that taking into consideration "space and time" in judicial matters could reasonable be justified as interpreting and applying the law as a living document and not necessarily the same as Relativism, and therefore still tempted to hold the view that the seriousness of the crime committed by the "Montie Gang Gbesi" is such that a deterrent action required.
  
  Having said the above, I agree with your excellent arguments, the authorities you cited and your conclusions, particularly the risk of going back into the days of culture of silence should the actions of the apex court put fear into the public and by default curtail free speech and media freedom. I agree with you that if they are to be tried for contempt of court it should be at lower court, though the Supreme Court is master of its own rules and can therefore decide to convict and sentence them for contempt if it so wishes.I also concur with you that the criminal prosecution should be led by the Attorney General.
  
  However, as indicated in the comment by SAY IT LOUD, what happens to the precedent set by the SC in the earlier case in 2012 if these are to be treated different? In other words, are you suggesting that ‘stare decisis’ should no longer apply?
  
  By the way, did you read the news on the unfortunate death of one Augusco and St John's House student yesterday?

  reply
• olu 9 years ago

  Conditional threat is not a threat by law. Get your facts well.

  Conditional threat is not a threat by law. Get your facts well.

  reply