Rejoinder: “The Supreme Court and Muntie” by Dr. Arthur Kennedy

Read Comments Comments (11)

• THE INDIAN BELEEE MAN 9 years ago

  I have no regrets in my life. I think that everything happens to you for a reason. The hard times that you go through build character, making you a much stronger PERSON. MUGABE ALISTAIR AKKO GUNN YOU PEOPLE ARE VERY STRONGER ...
  read full comment

  I have no regrets in my life. I think that everything happens to you for a reason. The hard times that you go through build character, making you a much stronger PERSON. MUGABE ALISTAIR AKKO GUNN YOU PEOPLE ARE VERY STRONGER THAN THIS

  reply
• OTABIL 9 years ago

  IF THEY ARE COMMITING ADULTERY THEY DO NOT THINK OF QUENCEQUENCES IF THEY ARE SMOKING WEE THEY DO NOT THINK OF QUENCEQUENCES AFTER ALL ALL DIE BE DIE AND FOR SUCH PEOPLE THE BIBLE SAYS BECAREFUL OF THEM

  IF THEY ARE COMMITING ADULTERY THEY DO NOT THINK OF QUENCEQUENCES IF THEY ARE SMOKING WEE THEY DO NOT THINK OF QUENCEQUENCES AFTER ALL ALL DIE BE DIE AND FOR SUCH PEOPLE THE BIBLE SAYS BECAREFUL OF THEM

  reply
• Observer1 9 years ago

  The chief justice did not out of morality resign following the exposure of the corrupt judges. Elsewhere in the world the CJ would bow her head in shame. Not in Ghana. The less connected judges were immediately given pink ...
  read full comment

  The chief justice did not out of morality resign following the exposure of the corrupt judges. Elsewhere in the world the CJ would bow her head in shame. Not in Ghana. The less connected judges were immediately given pink slips. But some are still going around.
  If the muntie panelists were seriously plotting to kill the judges they would not have come out in the open as your examples depict.

  reply
• SARPONG 9 years ago

  "If the muntie panelists were seriously plotting to kill the judges they would not have come out in the open"-IS THAT YOUR DEFENSE ARGUMENT?
  
  What a dumb and fallacious argument to defend the would be rapists and murderers ...
  read full comment

  "If the muntie panelists were seriously plotting to kill the judges they would not have come out in the open"-IS THAT YOUR DEFENSE ARGUMENT?
  
  What a dumb and fallacious argument to defend the would be rapists and murderers called the muntie 3. Do you know what a crime of incitement is? Maybe they will not do what they were propagating on the airwaves but their comments could incite others to commit the crime of rape and murder they were propagating.
  
  Can you go to a radio station and say that you will kill President Mahama next time you see him at any public event and use this idiotic argument you are advancing here? If you do that, the BNI will arrest and put you in their cells for weeks without bail before they prosecute you and sent you to prison for years. Maybe you will use that dumb argument to defend yourself and see how effective it will be.
  
  To those arguing that the Judges could not preside over a case involving them, that is a constitutional argument. Does the constitution give them the right to do what they did? If the answer is no, then why is it that our constitutional lawyers are not challenging the Supreme Court Justices that what they did was unconstitutional?
  
  Does Parliament has prosecutorial powers? Are we not in this country when Parliament drags people to parliament and subject them to prosecution for saying something that demeans parliament? Why do they do that? They can do that because the constitution grants them that powers and Supreme Court can do what they did because it is not against the constitution.
  
  I don't even want to take on those who argue that those thugs freedom of speech have been curtailed. Freedom of speech has its limits and when you cross the boundary, you can be prosecuted for defamation, terroristic threat, sedition, incitement and host of other crimes.
  
  Your freedom of speech ends where my nose begins.

  reply
• KOJO KRACHIE 9 years ago

  I strongly disagree with the author of this article.The SC has no prosecutorial powers.The basis of setting up the SC in the first place was to rule on lower court controversial decisions,and not to pursue justice for themsel ...
  read full comment

  I strongly disagree with the author of this article.The SC has no prosecutorial powers.The basis of setting up the SC in the first place was to rule on lower court controversial decisions,and not to pursue justice for themselves or on behalf of their families.They are supposed to interpret the constitution and be impartial.This case should have been referred to the AG's office.And by the way,the AG does not report to the SC.
  To act with impunity this way is absolutely abuse of power and activism.

  reply
• SARPONG 9 years ago

  Tell the Muntie 3 and their lawyers as well as the owners of that station that what the SC did was unconstitutional.
  
  Some of you use phrases you don't even understand. Who told you the SC has no prosecutorial powers? When ...
  read full comment

  Tell the Muntie 3 and their lawyers as well as the owners of that station that what the SC did was unconstitutional.
  
  Some of you use phrases you don't even understand. Who told you the SC has no prosecutorial powers? When the SC presided over the election petition, what did you call that?
  
  Do you think the SC will do something that is not constitutional? It is not the function of the SC to refer cases to the Attorney General for prosecution. The Attorney General's office in Ghana is a joke. That office has been politicized only political opponents are prosecuted.
  
  The Attorney General knew these fools have committed a criminal offence of terroristic threat and other crimes but because it was ndc station and ndc supporters, it decided not to do its job. The SC stepped in using it's powers bestowed on them by the constitution to mete out Justice.
  
  If there is any abuse of powers here by the SC, let the so called legal brains in ndc go to court and argue their case, kaput.

  reply
• nana addo 9 years ago

  Tyranny of the judiciary is tyranny.
  How can you sit on a case in which you are an interested party.
  The supreme court has messed itself up big time.

  Tyranny of the judiciary is tyranny.
  How can you sit on a case in which you are an interested party.
  The supreme court has messed itself up big time.

  reply
• Atonsu 9 years ago

  My dear , waste no time on Arthur Kennedy. He has lost touch with reason and common sense. When big brains like you spend time responding to this fellow, it makes him feel important. Ignore this attention seeker.

  My dear , waste no time on Arthur Kennedy. He has lost touch with reason and common sense. When big brains like you spend time responding to this fellow, it makes him feel important. Ignore this attention seeker.

  reply
• Rastafara"I" 9 years ago

  what is prestigious about ghanaweb?

  what is prestigious about ghanaweb?

  reply
• Kofi, Accra 9 years ago

  Because you cannot think logically that is why you have problem with this good article.

  Because you cannot think logically that is why you have problem with this good article.

  reply
• seniorMost 9 years ago

  please am just an ordinary accounting student so please indulge my "ignorance" if u think I am. I want to know if some one can explain to a layperson like my self without confusing me with a barricade of legal and technical w ...
  read full comment

  please am just an ordinary accounting student so please indulge my "ignorance" if u think I am. I want to know if some one can explain to a layperson like my self without confusing me with a barricade of legal and technical words, why where the directors were found guilty in this infamous montie case when the directors had and could not have had any influence whatever over the said comments but the chief justice was not held responsible and liable for the conduct of her officers in the Anaa expose`

  reply