Sunday,
June 30, 2013
In rebutting the verbal attacks
launched on Justice Atuguba and the Supreme Court by detractors criticizing
them for infringing on freedom of expression, I have said that their vitriol is
misplaced.
I have also drawn their attention
to the fact that the Supreme Court won’t sit down unconcerned for them to hijack
the NPP petition before it for trial at the bar of public opinion. It is only
by enforcing the contempt of court injunction/prohibition that the Court can
discipline public discourse and attitude toward the issue.
This move by the Supreme Court
isn’t new or strange. That is why all the noise being made against Justice
Atuguba and the Supreme Court in this particular case is baseless. To refresh
the memories of these NPP people crying themselves hoarse against Justice
Atuguba, here is something from the records:
In
the case involving the REPUBLIC versus LIBERTY PRESS LTD. AND OTHERS [1968] GLR
123–138, Chief Justice Edward Akufo-Addo, on the instruction of Attorney-General
Victor Owusu, had this to say:
“It
must be appreciated by the press and all other freedom-lovers that without a
judiciary strong, courageous and respected that can effectively protect the
freedom which we all love so much, all talk about freedom, whether it be in the
lecture room or at Bukom Square, remains no more
than a mere metaphysical speculation, and the courts are entitled to look upon
men such as are before me today to help them in the acquisition of the
requisite strength, courage and respect.
“One of the surest ways of doing so is to
refrain from commenting on proceedings which are pending in the courts. For
these constitute some of the most fruitful fields of contempt. There is however
no law which prohibits absolutely any such comments, but there is law which
punishes if the limits set by law are transgressed, as indeed they have been
transgressed in this case.
“I have stated that the courts are not above
criticism but the courts will not allow themselves to be subjected to pressures
emanating from irresponsible and romantic criticisms.”
Self-explanatory reason for anyone not to
discount or discredit the contempt of court injunction? This loud and clear
message came from one of the accomplished legal brains of the “Mate Me Ho” camp
whose son is today fighting himself lame, trying to become Ghana’s President
through the backdoor, using the dark chambers of the Supreme Court and not the
polling booths or ballot papers! And it is his political camp (the NPP) that is
flexing muscles to confront the Supreme Court in the performance of its
legitimate function in the enforcement of the contempt of court clause!!
I see nothing wrong with how the
Court has begun dealing with errant public commentators and will encourage
Justice Atuguba and his team not to relent until they stamp their full control
over the matter so everything is taken through the judicial process for determination
and conclusion. Those making unguarded public comments on the case being heard
by the Supreme Court can chafe all they want for being noticed and slated for “trial”
and consequent punishment. Their supporters can do same, but the Supreme Court
is right in doing what it has taken upon itself to do.
Unrestrained public comment on
the petition being heard—and the ongoing personal attacks on Justice Atuguba
and the Court—is more dangerous than the actions being taken by the Supreme
Court to instill discipline in public discourse about the petition and the Court’s
own work. Obviously, the fact that public discourse continues to be poisoned by
the bitter rivalry between the NDC and the NPP—which has invariably been extended
to include scathing attacks on the Supreme Court itself—suggests that the
situation is getting out of hand and only drastic action can reverse the trend.
That drastic action lies in the enforcement of the contempt of court clause by
the Supreme Court; hence, its dealing with the Sammy Awuku and those now to
face it on Tuesday. Anybody else who comes across as flouting the contempt of
court prohibition must be quickly identified and summonsed. Let’s see who will
be bold enough to pooh-pooh the Court!
We have noticed so far that those
wrongly perceiving the Supreme Court’s move as “dictatorial”—with particular
emphasis on Justice Atuguba as their bugbear—are mostly in the camp of the NPP.
They have risen up in defence of Awuku and Ken Kuranchie (Editor of the
Searchlight newspaper) while turning a blind eye to the two NDC operatives (John
Atubiga and Kwaku Boahen) as if they don’t matter. This is their problem. What
is bad for Awuku and Kuranchie about the Supreme Court’s move that isn’t so for
Atubiga and Boahen to warrant any show of sympathy for them from these NPP
people? Your guess is as good as mine. Political rivalry is at the core. If it
has to do with the fate of their political opponents, Godspeed for them to damnation;
but if the tide turns against their own interests, then, all hell should break
loose!!
Interestingly, the most
loquacious critics of the Supreme Court’s moves are from the NPP camp. They
have mounted the most strident criticisms and persistently isolated Justice
Atuguba for contemning. They are doing so because it is part of the grand
agenda of undermining the integrity of the Supreme Court, particularly, Justice
Atuguba, who is the President of the 9-member panel hearing the NPP’s petition.
The purpose they want to achieve
is simple: to create doubts in the minds of the NPP followers regarding the atmosphere
and trends about the hearing of their petition so that when the verdict goes
against them, they will move their agitations a notch higher to notoriety. They
are preparing the minds of their followers to reject such a verdict solely on
the basis of “bias” against the NPP by Justice Atuguba.
We have identified several
instances of personal attacks on Justice Atuguba to confirm this sinister
campaign by the NPP camp. Apart from their initial recrimination against him when
the panel was first constituted to hear their case, they have given clear
indications of their particular discomfiture that Justice Atuguba is at the
helm of affairs. They are unhappy at his dealings with their counsel, Philip
Addison, even when it is clear that Justice Atuguba hasn’t acted ultra vires!!
Two main perspectives from which
they have prosecuted their anti-Atuguba agenda are clear: on the basis of
ethnicity (that his being a Northerner automatically means that he has an
attachment to President Mahama (also a Northerner) and family ties (to Dr. Raymond
Atuguba, Executive Secretary of President Mahama) as well as political persuasion
(by wrongly associating Justice Atuguba with the NDC). Thus, anything they can
do to tarnish his image and portray him as “partial” will be snatched at and
used with an unprecedented alacrity. That is why Justice Atuguba is on their
lips for the wrong reason!
They have chosen him for
particular vengeance because they want to “break him down” so he will toe their
line. It seems the going is tough for them and nothing but this arm-twisting
tactics through hot-headed rhetoric can help them achieve their objective. But
that is fast becoming their undoing.
Although Justice Atuguba may be
heard intervening at some moments during proceedings at court or stamping the
authority of the court on the ebb and flow of goings-on, he is not acting
unilaterally for anybody to pinpoint him as a tyrant. He confers with his
fellow panel members on contentious issues and announces the court’s stance,
especially when a ruling is to be given on any objection raised by the
different legal teams.
Thus, his voice is pronounced and
his stature prominent, which his detractors are quick to mistake as the voice
of tyranny. I doubt whether they really are being honest to themselves. If they
are, they should be the first to admit that what they quickly misconstrue as
dictatorship on the part of Justice Atuguba is a collective stance of the panel
of judges hearing the case. It is their collective decision to crack the whip
on errant public commentators letting their tongues loose in the mistaken
belief that they have unlimited freedom of speech to enjoy.
Unfortunately for such people,
that exercise of freedom of speech is constrained by the very legal parameters
within which the Supreme Court (or any other court of competent jurisdiction)
functions. Those vainly deriding Justice Atuguba and the panel of judges for
enforcing the contempt of court injunction don’t really know what they are
talking about.
They need to know that the judiciary
plays a two-fold role as far as freedom of speech is concerned. It is a
defender of the very freedom of speech at issue. In the same vein, the
judiciary can enforce legal provisions to not only protect that freedom but also
to give it clout and to ensure that the freedom of speech is not abused. Protecting
and preventing the abuse of freedom of speech go hand-in-hand and must be
recognized as such.
In this particular case
concerning Sammy Awuku and the others summonsed to appear before the Supreme
Court on Tuesday, there is a clear abuse of that freedom of speech insofar as
their pronouncements infringe the provision on contempt of court.
I support the Supreme Court to
the full and will advise those wasting their time and energy criticizing it to
turn their attention elsewhere. Unless they are intentionally doing so in
concert with the political forces seeking to force a river to flow upstream,
they will listen to reason.
No matter their antics or rabble
rousing against the Supreme Court and Justice Atuguba, nothing will change.
Nobody’s back will be bent by their agitations. Unless the Supreme Court
exercises its powers to curb unwarranted public comments on the petition and
how it is handling matters, the situation will deteriorate. The Supreme Court shouldn’t
be anybody’s plaything to be toyed with or manipulated anyhow to serve
parochial political interests.
Those criticizing it for doing
its legitimate work are wasting their breath. Those petitioning the Chief Justice
to “call the Court to order” should be told that she can’t do anything to place
the Court at their beck and call. Lawless ness must not be encouraged. They
either learn to respect the law or be dealt with according to the law!!
I shall return…
·
E-mail:
mjbokor@yahoo.com
·
Join
me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor
No comments:
Post a Comment