Friday,
June 28, 2013
My good friends, I am glad that
the Supreme Court has begun exercising its powers to deal with those letting
their tongues loose and crossing the line. We are all aware of how the Supreme
Court has dealt with the NPP’s Sammy Awuku and we can tell from the
circumstances that indeed a stream of very cold shiver went down Awuku’s spine.
Of course, at this point, it is clear to him that “Man pass man!”
Though spared custodial
punishment, his being banned from attending the Court’s proceedings is enough
to clip his wings. He may be making some ugly noises of faint defiance at the
political fringes; but he knows deep down him that a severe punishment awaits
him if he falls out of step—or that “steel can cut steel” (“Dadie betwa
dadie”).
One immediate fallout of the
Supreme Court’s cracking the whip is that the NPP’s Chief Comedian (Kwadwo
Owusu Afriyie) has also sensed danger and is declaring that the NPP
functionaries will henceforth cease making defamatory utterances. He knows that
he may be the next in line to be dragged before the Supreme Court and is trying
to be smart.
The Supreme Court’s order for
three others (the NDC’s Atubiga, Kweku Boahen and the Searchlight editor, Ken
Kuranchie) to appear before it on July 2 has further confirmed that the Court
is determined to go to any distance to clamp down on unsavoury comments being
made here and there by just anybody who thinks that he has the forum to enjoy
his so-called freedom of speech.
Even before July 2 dawns, those
summonsed by the Court have begun quivering with fright. A member of the communications team of
the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Stephen Atubiga, has rendered an
unqualified apology to the Supreme Court and Ghanaians as a whole over comments
he describes as “irresponsible”.
Speaking on TV3’s News 360 on Thursday, June 27, 2013, Mr Atubiga said he considers his action inappropriate and contemptuous of the court. “I apologise from the bottom of my heart,” he stated.
Speaking on TV3’s News 360 on Thursday, June 27, 2013, Mr Atubiga said he considers his action inappropriate and contemptuous of the court. “I apologise from the bottom of my heart,” he stated.
Ken
Kuranchie may be attempting to come across as bold in asking that his summons
should have been in a written form but he knows deep down what is already
eating away his “heart.”
Why
is he dancing himself lame before the actual dancing begins? The bell is
tolling loud to instill fear; not so?
I
suppose that the Supreme Court will take prompt steps to deal with anybody it
considers as falling out of step as far as public comments on the hearing of
the NPP’s petition is concerned. Good job!!
Some
have, however, been quick to isolate Justice Atuguba for personal attacks,
describing him as autocratic, dictatorial, or stifling freedom of expression;
but the truth is that he is doing what is long overdue to ensure that public
discourse on the proceedings at the court doesn’t catalyze needless tension to
deepen antagonism along partisan political lines. Or to suggest that the judges
are impartial, which in itself is dangerous because of its becoming the main
cause of dissension and resistance for the party that loses the case.
I
see nothing wrong with how Justice Atuguba and his team are handling the
matter. They are not intimidating anybody but making sure that nobody abuses
the process. What is wrong about that?
But
some questions have arisen about how we should position ourselves as we comment
on issues concerning the Court’s hearing of the petition in order not to be
roped in too as culpable for committing “contempt of court”. I have nothing to
fear and will continue to make my voice heard for as long as I know my limits.
Those
appearing on the airwaves and other media and letting their tongues loose for
mere political capital should blame themselves for being incontinent and
imprudent in their language use and the angle from which they discuss issues.
And they should brace themselves up for the Supreme Court’s summons.
I won't be deterred by current
happenings because I have been one of those ardently asking that the Supreme
Court crack the whip; and it has begun doing so to my satisfaction and
approbation. What should I fear when I wade into the matter? Why should I even
be concerned? For as long as I know how to navigate the legal and political
terrain, I will play it safe as I choose issues to comment on. That’s how to
avoid the wrath of the Supreme Court.
Already, some have begun
complaining that by its action, the Supreme Court is curtailing freedom of
speech. This accusation is baseless and unwarranted. The Supreme Court is only
ensuring discipline and restricting public pronouncements on a matter before
it.
That is why those latching on to
the fate of Sammy Awuku to indulge in their anti-Atuguba vicious campaign won’t
turn my crank.
One
of such people is a Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare (alias Kwaku Azar) who has
come out to say that he has sent a petition to the Chief Justice concerning the
Supreme Court's action to stem wanton public comments on the NPP's petition
before it.
I have already commented elsewhere on this petition for all that it entails to suggest that the Supreme Court is right in moving forward to clamp down on the reckless public utterances regarding the case that it is sitting on. If it can't take on people on the basis of "contempt of court," what else can it do to prevent all manner of comments being made on a case that is "sub judice"?
The mere fact that the constitution guarantees freedom of speech doesn't mean that the petition hearing should be prejudged by all manner of people rabble-rousing in the society for cheap political capital. If the Supreme Court cannot restrain people from judging the case at the bar of public opinion, what else should it do to ensure that the matter before it is not prejudiced and poisoned by those with loose tongues?
Of course, one can comment on a case after judgement has been given, not when the case is in the middle of being heard. I see this petition as part of the rabble-rousing anti-Atuguba campaign by those who feel uncomfortable by what the Supreme Court has begun doing.
I have already commented elsewhere on this petition for all that it entails to suggest that the Supreme Court is right in moving forward to clamp down on the reckless public utterances regarding the case that it is sitting on. If it can't take on people on the basis of "contempt of court," what else can it do to prevent all manner of comments being made on a case that is "sub judice"?
The mere fact that the constitution guarantees freedom of speech doesn't mean that the petition hearing should be prejudged by all manner of people rabble-rousing in the society for cheap political capital. If the Supreme Court cannot restrain people from judging the case at the bar of public opinion, what else should it do to ensure that the matter before it is not prejudiced and poisoned by those with loose tongues?
Of course, one can comment on a case after judgement has been given, not when the case is in the middle of being heard. I see this petition as part of the rabble-rousing anti-Atuguba campaign by those who feel uncomfortable by what the Supreme Court has begun doing.
In any event, it is the Supreme Court that is
mandated to hear the case to its logical conclusion and give a ruling on it,
based on whatever evidence/facts adduced before it by all the parties. What is
currently going on in the public domain won’t serve any useful purpose but
create conditions for tension and needless mayhem. The Supreme Court is right
and should be left alone to do its work.
I shall return…
·
E-mail:
mjbokor@yahoo.com
·
Join
me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor
No comments:
Post a Comment