Montie FM criminal contempt - Martin Amidu's take

Read Article

Comments (43)

This article is closed for comments.

Read Comments Comments (43)

Charles Agbenu 9 years ago

We are not lawyers but we ask simple questions which touch on the fundamentals .

Martin Amidu cites constitutional issues to condemn SC for prosecuting & judging a contempt ex facie curiae by itself; with the reckless M ...
read full comment

We are not lawyers but we ask simple questions which touch on the fundamentals .

Martin Amidu cites constitutional issues to condemn SC for prosecuting & judging a contempt ex facie curiae by itself; with the reckless Montie 3.

Great WOrk . But Amidu , Amaliba & such critics shd come again...

What is the remedy for the Supreme Court judges if they are threatened & the Attorney General fails to charge the aggresors?

In the face of such persistent threats & AG inactions, what do the judges do? That was the crux of the matter.

Martin Amidu must explain this fundamental .

Gud morning folks .
pkk 9 years ago

Mr. Charles Agbanu,it has been a long, long time but I have been following you since 1989 ,May I ask, if someone steals your cassava and you think the Police are not acting . do you go and break his head?

Mr. Charles Agbanu,it has been a long, long time but I have been following you since 1989 ,May I ask, if someone steals your cassava and you think the Police are not acting . do you go and break his head?
C/C 9 years ago

The guy like most of those defendingg the CRIMINALS forget that in the administration of LAW AT TIMES PROCEDURAL FRILLS MUST GIVE WAY TO COMMON SENSE........." What is the remedy for the Supreme Court judges if they are th ...
read full comment

The guy like most of those defendingg the CRIMINALS forget that in the administration of LAW AT TIMES PROCEDURAL FRILLS MUST GIVE WAY TO COMMON SENSE........." What is the remedy for the Supreme Court judges if they are threatened & the Attorney General fails to charge the aggresors? ""

Let Amidu come again
Kwame 9 years ago

I am not a lawyer, just an ordinary citizen, who completely disagree with the behavior of the Montie3 but the issues raised by Amidu make a whole lots of sense. When Akuffo Addo, Kennedy Agyepong and Samuel Awuku talk about " ...
read full comment

I am not a lawyer, just an ordinary citizen, who completely disagree with the behavior of the Montie3 but the issues raised by Amidu make a whole lots of sense. When Akuffo Addo, Kennedy Agyepong and Samuel Awuku talk about "fire" and "all die be die" if NPP does not win the upcoming elections, that is a clear threat not only to the present executive but also to all the citizens of Ghana. If the executive declares them guilty, which it has the powers to, and jails them, we will be crying POLITICAL PROSECUTION. Here we have the S/C serving as the complainant, the prosecutor, the judge and the jury. Just because it is a court. Whether the Montie3 had a legal representation or not, they didn't have a chance. Couldn't the S/C sue them and have the issue and punishment determined by another court other than them? That way they will only be seen as the complainant. Remember, Kennedy Agyepong, Samuel Awuku, Wontumi etc make threatening statements everyday on the airwaves and nobody accuses the Attorney General of inactivity or political bias for not prosecuting them.
AMUZU ATIKPO 9 years ago

Kwame, please remember that the late Prof Mills also said that Ghana would burn like Kenya if he did not win the 2008 election. What could be more all-die-be-die than that? Yet he was never charged!!! Wouldn't he and his part ...
read full comment

Kwame, please remember that the late Prof Mills also said that Ghana would burn like Kenya if he did not win the 2008 election. What could be more all-die-be-die than that? Yet he was never charged!!! Wouldn't he and his party have cried foul and complained of POLITICAL PROSECUTION if the SC or the then AG had prosecuted him?

Please let's agree on as a matter of fact that, supporters from both political camps (NPP and NDC) have at one time or the other issued threats but were not charged. However, the Montie 3 threats were personal and direct. They also made reference to a previous gruesome murder and burning of judges which was carried out by the antecedent of their NDC party. The BNI did not take a serious view of it and dismissed it as a sheer political rhetoric. Nor did the AG office see it fit to bring them to book. Therefore the SC was justified to step in and put things right!!!!
Kwame 9 years ago

Thanks, really I don't hold brief for any of the political parties in the country. I just wish the SC had gone about this case differently so as not to leave a bad precedence or loop holes to be exploited in the near future.

Thanks, really I don't hold brief for any of the political parties in the country. I just wish the SC had gone about this case differently so as not to leave a bad precedence or loop holes to be exploited in the near future.
AMUZU ATIKPO 9 years ago

Kwame,

Thanks for the respectful tone of your response. This is the way we should be interacting with each other on this forum. Talking about precedence, please note that the Montie 3 case followed another one that had alr ...
read full comment

Kwame,

Thanks for the respectful tone of your response. This is the way we should be interacting with each other on this forum. Talking about precedence, please note that the Montie 3 case followed another one that had already been used to set the precedence ... i.e. the Sir John/Ken Kuranchie et al case during the 2012 Electoral petition. So Montie 3 is the second of it's kind in the nation's contemporary legal and political history.
Prof Lungu 9 years ago

Charles Agbenu,
Come again!

Does the Supreme Court protect themselves in public, and at home?

Arrogance, and judicial tyranny!

The BNI itself did not determine they, the BNI, needed to act in that matter.

So read ...
read full comment

Charles Agbenu,
Come again!

Does the Supreme Court protect themselves in public, and at home?

Arrogance, and judicial tyranny!

The BNI itself did not determine they, the BNI, needed to act in that matter.

So read again, and pipe down, sir:

"...However, when the contempt is a criminal contempt committed ex facie curiae (out of Court) the Court has no power or authority under the fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed by 1992 Constitution to proceed as the complainant, prosecutor, judge and jury in its own cause..."

WE SAY: We agree!

Greetings.
Nii Teiko 9 years ago

The SC acted upon a precedence, thus Atuguba's court vs Awuku, Koranchie, Sir John& Atubiga. Secondly, do you still have to give somebody who has admitted his/her guilty the chance to defend himself/herself in any lower Court ...
read full comment

The SC acted upon a precedence, thus Atuguba's court vs Awuku, Koranchie, Sir John& Atubiga. Secondly, do you still have to give somebody who has admitted his/her guilty the chance to defend himself/herself in any lower Court? Well, Amidu make a lot of sense legally, but the judges also had the right to invoke the case-law between 'Sir John and co vs Atuguba's Court' to deal with the 3-Muntie-Monkeys. And the court aptly did it in a superb fashion, just as expected by every sound and reasonable Ghanaians. You see, sometimes you have to ignore the nonsense of the law and it's numerous ambiguous articles and clauses, as enshrine in the constitution, and deal with situations as it is. America of all nations ignored their constitution and aptly dealt with those Human Cockroaches who see everybody who do not subscribe to the tenets of the Koran as infidels, and, therefore, do not deserve to live. Unlike those Human Caricatures who usually behead their captives, the American caged them at Gitmo and treated same with 3-square meals daily. How sweet? God bless America. Btw, as for the 3-Muntie Stooges, their best punishment should have been castration; they should have been neutered the very moment they admitted their guilt.
Samson 9 years ago

Well done Martin. My problem is this. The SC has acted unconstitutionally in this case. But since rulings by the SC are supposed to guide decisions in future cases, what can be done to do away with this ruling? This ruling ha ...
read full comment

Well done Martin. My problem is this. The SC has acted unconstitutionally in this case. But since rulings by the SC are supposed to guide decisions in future cases, what can be done to do away with this ruling? This ruling has diminished the status and integrity of the SC in my opinion. As you have stated a review cannot be done, because of the complications. This ruling surely cannot be allowed to stand in the legal history of our country. Prof. Asare made similar points in his comments on the ruling. Don't you think irrespective of the political ramifications, a presidential pardon will set the records straight?

Abongoz 9 years ago

Stop deceiving the gullible public with this booklong nonsense!

"According to the outspoken lawyer, although the Supreme Court has the power to commit for contempt, it erred in this instance because the act in question occ ...
read full comment

Stop deceiving the gullible public with this booklong nonsense!

"According to the outspoken lawyer, although the Supreme Court has the power to commit for contempt, it erred in this instance because the act in question occurred outside court."

"Contempt" is NOT limited to "inside court", onu lo!
Okonko Palm 9 years ago

Yes contempt is not only limited inside court as you said but Amidu argues that if it happens outside the court then the due process of the criminal procedure must be followed and that is to properly arraign the accuse on a c ...
read full comment

Yes contempt is not only limited inside court as you said but Amidu argues that if it happens outside the court then the due process of the criminal procedure must be followed and that is to properly arraign the accuse on a criminal charge with its burden of proof.

generally one charged with criminal contempt gets the constitutional rights guaranteed to criminal defendants, including the right to counsel, right to put on a defense, and the right to a jury trial in certain cases. Charges of criminal contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This Amidu argues the sc failed to do in contravention of the individual constitutional and human right especially the right to a fair trial.
Abongoz 9 years ago

Cite one case law where a discretionary contempt charge with same judge's determination that penalty will NOT be beyond
6-months, has this nonsensical "constitutional rights guaranteed to criminal defendants"!

Parliament ...
read full comment

Cite one case law where a discretionary contempt charge with same judge's determination that penalty will NOT be beyond
6-months, has this nonsensical "constitutional rights guaranteed to criminal defendants"!

Parliament and the courts have the exclusive authority to use DISCRETION in matters of "contempt".

Judges are empowered to "charge, prosecute and sentence" in same case they sit on!
Okonko Palm 9 years ago

I don't think you even understand what you wrote more so Amidu's legal arguments which was based on the law and logic.

I don't think you even understand what you wrote more so Amidu's legal arguments which was based on the law and logic.
Abongoz 9 years ago

OK, Sir, let me break it down for you.

The Law gives exclusive authority to a Judge to pre-determine "what and when" to charge a person for "contempt".

The Law gives authority to a Judge to pre-determine that the "penal ...
read full comment

OK, Sir, let me break it down for you.

The Law gives exclusive authority to a Judge to pre-determine "what and when" to charge a person for "contempt".

The Law gives authority to a Judge to pre-determine that the "penalty" will not exceed 6-months.

Any penalty that does not exceed 6-months is "summary sentencing" DEVOID of "rights of a criminal".

In that case, ALL constitutional rights of the charged person is dependent on the mercy and discretion of the SAME Judge.

Simple enough for your understanding, Sir?
Okonko Palm 9 years ago

I see your understanding of the law and what Amidu wrote must be limited.Amidu's argument is that all civilize legal jurisdiction including where we copied our constitution prosecute contempt outside the court only through th ...
read full comment

I see your understanding of the law and what Amidu wrote must be limited.Amidu's argument is that all civilize legal jurisdiction including where we copied our constitution prosecute contempt outside the court only through the known procedure established under the constitution and its safe guards.

Anything other that is wrong and the sc can not make the law other wise the sc will end up the tyrants of our democracy.

What you have posted has not added anything to that argument.If anything,it is out of context and irrelevant to the debate.
Abongoz 9 years ago

Did Amidu cite any "case law" from "where we
copied our constitution", blah, blah blah.

Ghana web is disallowing a "copy and paste" from Harvard Law to refute your fallacious assertion that all "civilized legalized jurisd ...
read full comment

Did Amidu cite any "case law" from "where we
copied our constitution", blah, blah blah.

Ghana web is disallowing a "copy and paste" from Harvard Law to refute your fallacious assertion that all "civilized legalized jurisdiction"
blah, blah blah.

Heck a recent case in the US District of Columbia where a Judge sentenced a Lawyer to jail for "argumentative and contempt" same day bailiffs cuff him, take him away!

Don't just gobble up what Amidu asserts, do your own RESEARCH on "Contempt of Court"
from your "civilized and copied folks"!!
Okonko Palm 9 years ago

What you are trying to cite is contempt in court or direct contempt which is different from contempt outside the court or indirect contempt.In direct contempt the procedure is summary since the court does not require to rely ...
read full comment

What you are trying to cite is contempt in court or direct contempt which is different from contempt outside the court or indirect contempt.In direct contempt the procedure is summary since the court does not require to rely on the testimony of third parties for proof of the offense.

Amidu is saying in indirect contempt,the sc is obliged to follow due process in criminal procedure.Anything other than that will be in breach of the constitution and the right of the accuse.
Bruz 9 years ago

OK, Sir, thx!

OK, Sir, thx!
Abongoz 9 years ago

And didn't they come to court with their Lawyers and plead GUILTY?

You blame Judges for "incompetent defence lawyers"?

And didn't they come to court with their Lawyers and plead GUILTY?

You blame Judges for "incompetent defence lawyers"?

Okonko Palm 9 years ago

I agree that the lawyers were incompetent and Amidu said so.He said the procedure should have been challenged and impressed on the sc that they will be wrong to go ahead with investigation, prosecution and judges at the same ...
read full comment

I agree that the lawyers were incompetent and Amidu said so.He said the procedure should have been challenged and impressed on the sc that they will be wrong to go ahead with investigation, prosecution and judges at the same time.

That will be in breach of natural justice which says no ma shall be a judge in his or her own case and the avoidance of bias is a cardinal principal in that regard.

Even if they overruled the lawyers it that decision will become a public record which will be there to be judged.For fear of posterity's judgment on them they might do the right thing but unfortunately the lawyers failed their clients.
Abongoz 9 years ago

... with RELEVANT case law and citations:

"The Supreme Court has also held in another matter that article 88 which empowers the Attorney General to deal with criminal cases does not cover criminal contempt matters and that ...
read full comment

... with RELEVANT case law and citations:

"The Supreme Court has also held in another matter that article 88 which empowers the Attorney General to deal with criminal cases does not cover criminal contempt matters and that criminal contempt is contempt inherent in the court itself.” “That power to punish for contempt is inherent in the court, it does not emanate from any criminal prosecution from outside, so it is the court that must deal with it, and they don’t need the Attorney General to prosecute it,” he added.

Ayikoi Otoo further argued that, the Supreme Court, is “not normally bound by its previous decision, but until it changes its mind on a particular matter, that position is what must always win.” “He [Amidu] cited the case of Liberty Press and Mensah Bonsu where the Attorney General prosecuted them but subsequently, the Supreme Court said you don’t need the Attorney General to prosecute anybody and due to that, they have dealt with contempt [cases] directly by themselves.

That is the law, until the position changes. So I don’t agree with him [Amidu] at all.” “Even the article which deals with no person should be punished except for an offense and punishment which are defined, excludes contempt of court cases which tells you that, it is a different category, so while I respect the views that he has espoused, I think that it is wrong and that is not the present position of the law,” Ayikoi Otoo added.
Okonko Palm 9 years ago

Some times we erroneously believe that the sc is above the law and constitution as Ayikoi is saying.No its role role is to interpret the law but can not make public policies.

That is why law making is exclusive to parliame ...
read full comment

Some times we erroneously believe that the sc is above the law and constitution as Ayikoi is saying.No its role role is to interpret the law but can not make public policies.

That is why law making is exclusive to parliament.If the sc should exceed its constitutional mandate then it is up to jurists like Amidu to help with the laws intent.

Unlike some Supreme Courts in other parts of the world, the Ghana Supreme Court does not have the power to 'strike down' legislation passed by the Ghana Parliament.

It is the Court's role to interpret the law and develop it where necessary, rather than formulate public policy.
Abongoz 9 years ago

Lordy, the court is not formulating any "public policy".

It is exercising its "inherent authority in Contempt of Court" cases.

Folks like Amidu are "publicity pimps"!

Why doesn't he use the "Law" to make Woyomi lose ...
read full comment

Lordy, the court is not formulating any "public policy".

It is exercising its "inherent authority in Contempt of Court" cases.

Folks like Amidu are "publicity pimps"!

Why doesn't he use the "Law" to make Woyomi lose his assets an the Judgement Debt fraud case?
Zoko Bia Chicago 9 years ago

Mr. Amidu is laying out the unconstitutional bases on which the judge went about the case and he is right. Their ruling was based on emotions and not the law with respect to the constitution. Where in the world does a judge c ...
read full comment

Mr. Amidu is laying out the unconstitutional bases on which the judge went about the case and he is right. Their ruling was based on emotions and not the law with respect to the constitution. Where in the world does a judge charge somebody? The judge cannot be a prosecutor and a judge at the same time. Where then is the separation of power. It is the security forces and the attorney general that bring the prosecution before the judge, the judge then gives the ruling with reference to the constitutional provision for that the particular offense.It is sad that some us are so ignorant and will just write anything. How can a judge give a ruling and said, not even the president can do us anything, and you think that is the law. The president an executive and a different arm of government and so another arm of government has no power over the president.
Abongoz 9 years ago

Here, smart aleck:
A former Attorney General in the New Patriotic Party (NPP) administration, Ayikoi Otoo, has said Martin Amidu’s interpretation of the Constitution in relation to the sentencing of the three Montie FM tri ...
read full comment

Here, smart aleck:
A former Attorney General in the New Patriotic Party (NPP) administration, Ayikoi Otoo, has said Martin Amidu’s interpretation of the Constitution in relation to the sentencing of the three Montie FM trio and the owners of the station is wrong.
Okonko Palm 9 years ago

Ayikoi is exhibiting a lazy and uncritical thinking of the law.Amidu's opinion was well argued with references that must stand the test in any jurisdiction.Ayikoi should come up with with a rebuttal but not to make this lazy ...
read full comment

Ayikoi is exhibiting a lazy and uncritical thinking of the law.Amidu's opinion was well argued with references that must stand the test in any jurisdiction.Ayikoi should come up with with a rebuttal but not to make this lazy armchair remarks.We want his well argued opinion too.

Perhaps as a lazy thinker he did not see the need to question the impropriety of the unconstitutionality of the sc procedure in the sir John's case.

Amidu thinks the law must be tested and allow the sc to rule on record as a posterity document If they had been challenged.They would have sat up and save face from the contempt of history of the judgements of the Justice wood" rein as chief justice
C/C 9 years ago

Maybe Amidu should goback to law school to understand what "due process" means.Amidu juggles amid procedural frills and would want to throw a blunt on our faces.

The idiots threatened torape and kill ladies of the su ...
read full comment

Maybe Amidu should goback to law school to understand what "due process" means.Amidu juggles amid procedural frills and would want to throw a blunt on our faces.

The idiots threatened torape and kill ladies of the supreme court. THAT ALONE IS SUFFICIENT FACT to put the idiots in jail.

Does blind Amidu recalls the fate of the OTHER SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WHO WERE ABDUCTED AND KILLED BY RAWLINGS AND HIS NDC? For thisFACT alone the current justices acted prudently to jailthe idiots. THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND THE CONSEQUENCIES. INFACT THEY WERE OPERATING AN NDC RADIO STATION ANDVOICED SENTIMENTSOF THE NDC.(same NDC that killed other justices)

Amdu should wake up and know that the actions of the fools threatened NATIONAL SECURITY.

Amidunshouldwakeup to know that ALL THE FAMFARE OF DUE PROCESS WERE MET AT THE PROCEEDINGS THAT JAILED THE FOOLS.
Okonko Palm 9 years ago

Yours is more of emotions that reason

Yours is more of emotions that reason
C/C 9 years ago

THE ARE FACTS-if emotional can you now understand the frustrations of the justices?

THE ARE FACTS-if emotional can you now understand the frustrations of the justices?

C/C 9 years ago

Where is it written that CONTEMPT IS LIMITED TO ""IN THE COURTROOM""?

You should be ashamed of yourself AMIDU

Where is it written that CONTEMPT IS LIMITED TO ""IN THE COURTROOM""?

You should be ashamed of yourself AMIDU
Araba koku mensah 9 years ago

GREENGO is a SHIT book. A piece of mediocrity.

GREENGO is a SHIT book. A piece of mediocrity.
kululu 9 years ago

I stand corrected; was Amidu not the deputy attorney general for P/NDC when the three high court judges were murdered in cool blood by his mentor j j years back? His conscience haunts him for those ills to today, that's why h ...
read full comment

I stand corrected; was Amidu not the deputy attorney general for P/NDC when the three high court judges were murdered in cool blood by his mentor j j years back? His conscience haunts him for those ills to today, that's why he's come to defend his compatriots, the Ahwois and the ndc.
Bruz 9 years ago

Amidu and his new "pal" Prof Asare have lost all credibility!

Booklong gone berserk!

Amidu and his new "pal" Prof Asare have lost all credibility!

Booklong gone berserk!
AKYEMKWAA OSEI POKU 9 years ago

YOU REALLY STAND TO BE CORRECTED. MARTIN AMIDU WAS NOT AROUND WHEN THE JUDGES WERE CRUELLY MURDERED.AT BEST HE COULD HAVE BEEN A YOUNG CADRE OF THE REVOLUTION SOMEWHERE IN THE UPPER EAST REGION.

YOU REALLY STAND TO BE CORRECTED. MARTIN AMIDU WAS NOT AROUND WHEN THE JUDGES WERE CRUELLY MURDERED.AT BEST HE COULD HAVE BEEN A YOUNG CADRE OF THE REVOLUTION SOMEWHERE IN THE UPPER EAST REGION.
Prof. Denis Logvehy 9 years ago

Former Attorney General Martin Amidu has shown again that he is a barrister of near incomparable stature. His legal exegesis on the vexed 'Montie Thee saga' has been thoroughly insightful, touching both on procedural lapses i ...
read full comment

Former Attorney General Martin Amidu has shown again that he is a barrister of near incomparable stature. His legal exegesis on the vexed 'Montie Thee saga' has been thoroughly insightful, touching both on procedural lapses in the summoning of the accused to the unconstitutionality of the so-called powers of the supreme court to sit as a judge in their own cause. In any case, Mr. Amidu underscored the point that even the judges derive their powers from the 1992 constitution ,and therefore cannot capriciously arrogate to themselves powers they to have under law. The delineation of Martin is grounded in sufficient legal precedent ,and rules of law and constitutional gravitas. Again, he posited rather confidently that the president can exercise pardon in all criminal convictions in consultation with the Council of State. I hope the sadists and haters are listening!
Obuama 9 years ago

All those challenging or condemning Martin today are doing so not our of reason and objectivity, but simply because he has towed the line of objectivity and not the path borne ouy of political hatred. These same people hailed ...
read full comment

All those challenging or condemning Martin today are doing so not our of reason and objectivity, but simply because he has towed the line of objectivity and not the path borne ouy of political hatred. These same people hailed Martin as a hero and legal luminary when he criticized government. What at all do these evil-filled unsympathetic wicked people want? They hate the truth and they will go to any length to bastardize anyone who thinks differently from them. Are these ethnocentric and politically biased people Christians, Moslems or what? Do they expect God's mercy such that they be forgiven their dies? How callous can one be! Martin has pointed out the issues and the earlier we tackle and correct them the better it will be for the future of our democracy: otherwise we will create a monster in Judiciary tyranny that will sure lead us to chaos. The president must act now and restore the fundamental rights of the Montie 3 by exercising his prerogative of mercy, dawn the Haters and doomsayers.
Kwabena Yeboah 9 years ago

Martin Amidu wrote:

"However, when the contempt is a criminal contempt committed ex facie curiae (out of Court) the Court has no power or authority under the fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed by 1992 Constit ...
read full comment

Martin Amidu wrote:

"However, when the contempt is a criminal contempt committed ex facie curiae (out of Court) the Court has no power or authority under the fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed by 1992 Constitution to proceed as the complainant, prosecutor, judge and jury in its own cause."

Succinctly put, but short on proscutorial discretion available to the SC. The point others have made to the effect that a lower court should have heard the case instead of the SC, does not hold water in my view. It would be conflict of interest nevertheless, because the threat was against the Justices of SC who are part of the judiciary. Besides, an appeal would end up in the SC anyways.

Perhaps if the lawyers for the accused persons had raised all the constitutional and legal defenses against the charges and arraignment processes, as noted by Martin Amidu in this scintillating and insightful article, we would not be discussing this issue by now.

However, I would contend that poor representation is no excuse for the SC to violate the articles of Ghana's Constitution. This is completely an aberration to the country's jurisprudence, and I am terribly sad.
Ali hudu Baba 9 years ago

Abongoz, please kindly go through the Dr. Marten Amidu master peace again . you seem to be suffering from Selective Myopia.

Abongoz, please kindly go through the Dr. Marten Amidu master peace again . you seem to be suffering from Selective Myopia.
Kaakyire 9 years ago

Oh my Big Martin,remember at times there is always peace in silence. The Supreme Court in their ruling apointed a finger at the Attorney General... why! So please Martin Don't go there,leave THEM alone please

Oh my Big Martin,remember at times there is always peace in silence. The Supreme Court in their ruling apointed a finger at the Attorney General... why! So please Martin Don't go there,leave THEM alone please
Prof Lungu 9 years ago

READ: "...However, when the contempt is a criminal contempt committed ex facie curiae (out of Court) the Court has no power or authority under the fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed by 1992 Constitution to proce ...
read full comment

READ: "...However, when the contempt is a criminal contempt committed ex facie curiae (out of Court) the Court has no power or authority under the fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed by 1992 Constitution to proceed as the complainant, prosecutor, judge and jury in its own cause..."

WE SAY: We agree!
samuel villa 9 years ago

Martin Amidu, I love your take and enlightment on the bizaare judgement on Montie FM criminal contempt.I am a legal illiterate but I questioned if there standard guide lines in the administration of justice in Ghana and liken ...
read full comment

Martin Amidu, I love your take and enlightment on the bizaare judgement on Montie FM criminal contempt.I am a legal illiterate but I questioned if there standard guide lines in the administration of justice in Ghana and likened the way and manner the ruling judge behaved to to that of the one who sat on Tsastu Tsikata's causing financial loss to the state case.Thank you,God/Ala bless you and lead our judges not into political temptations,but deliver them from political evil Amen.
Posca 9 years ago

Were you given a pajero,a house or millions of tax payers money please let the truth come out.

Were you given a pajero,a house or millions of tax payers money please let the truth come out.

43 Comments

Welcome,

SIGN IN

Welcome,

RESET PASSWORD

Hello,

Terms and conditions

REGISTER

Montie FM criminal contempt - Martin Amidu's take

Read Comments .st0{display:none;fill:#14BDD3;} .st1{display:none;} .st2{display:inline;fill:#FC0F0F;} .st3{display:inline;fill:#FFFFFF;} .st4{display:inline;fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:6;stroke-miterlimit:10;} Comments (43)

Read Comments Comments (43)