Natural Justice and the Power of ....

Read Comments Comments (4)

• PHILTY McNASTY 10 years ago

  Thanks for the lecture.

  Thanks for the lecture.

  reply
• Carl 10 years ago

  This is a balance assessment of both the laws of contempt and the rules governing natural justice.Unlike some Ghanaian foreign so called professors whose knowledge of both principles are suspect or partisan and therefore lack ...
  read full comment

  This is a balance assessment of both the laws of contempt and the rules governing natural justice.Unlike some Ghanaian foreign so called professors whose knowledge of both principles are suspect or partisan and therefore lacks credibility.
  
  There are two issues here,the rules governing natural justice are administrative based on the principle that where there are rights or legitimate expectation,the rules of natural justice will intervene to ensure that before you are penalized you have been given the right to a fair hearing which means you have been given prior notice of the case, a fair opportunity to answer it, and the opportunity to present your own case.In effect this is procedural just to ensure that justice is seen to be done and that you have been given the opportunity to defend yourself appropriately.
  
  On the other hand contempt of court especially criminal contempt by its nature is a strict liability offence and therefore the rules governing crime does not operate.In effect the mens rea or intent and the act or actus rea which must coincide for a crime to be committed are absent.So the principle separate itself by definition from the rules of natural justice.
  
  The topic was well handled though and is devoid of bias and passes for a scholarly article.

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 10 years ago

  Daniel, please forgive if this article is an amended version of what I read on Joy or Peace FM online earlier in the week. I have not read this one believing it's the same as the one I read.
  
  Whilst I agree with you on all ...
  read full comment

  Daniel, please forgive if this article is an amended version of what I read on Joy or Peace FM online earlier in the week. I have not read this one believing it's the same as the one I read.
  
  Whilst I agree with you on all the legal arguments, especially the question of the rights to fair trail, I am still of the view that the actions of the SC to deal with the contemnors were appropriate. Why do I say so?
  
  I learnt in Law, Anthropology and Society (an option I took as part of Human Rights course), that above all, the interpretation and application of law must be made relevant by taking into consideration prevailing circumstances (time and space). The Justices would have let things get out of control had they not acted to stop the under current tensions in Ghana at the time. Again, I used to train Judges and Magistrates here on the Cultural Diversity and its application in law. For example, I explained to them that in some cultures eye contact is considered unacceptable in certain circumstances whilst in Europe lack of it could be considered a sign of guilt. Therefore there was the need for them to appreciate cultural differences in the application of law.
  
  For these reasons, though I agree that those people did not receive a fair trial, taking into consideration the prevailing circumstances at the time, the Justices were right. For example, no lawyer in western Europe would use the sort of language by Sir John on the SC but in Ghana that is what happened. In other words, Ghanaian culture ( the way of life as well as people's behaviour and attitudes) had to be taken into consideration in applying the law. As a result, whilst what happened in Ghana will not happen in the UK because of cultural differences it is probably acceptable in Ghana. However, Ghana must strive to reach higher levels so we do not have lawyers speaking against SC Justices as if they are uneducated and to avoid a situation where SC would be compelled to act arbitrary, though I accept that two wrongs do not add up to one right.
  
  I found your piece very interesting and educative to read.

  reply
• Carl 10 years ago

  Kofi,the the contemnors received a fair trial under the definition of the crime that they committed.If the crime had been defined differently then you may be right to say these people did not receive a fair trial.Under strict ...
  read full comment

  Kofi,the the contemnors received a fair trial under the definition of the crime that they committed.If the crime had been defined differently then you may be right to say these people did not receive a fair trial.Under strict liability offences,due process is different from the normal judicial process and so you will be wrong to agree that due process which is what generally the definition of natural justice is, was not followed.The question of bias for example is not applicable when you are caught without your MOT.So whether the police man who imposed the penalty had been rude to your on a previous occasion is neither here nor there because it is a strict liability offences.
  
  Protection of public order offences are necessary because it brings practical benefits and is often used to provide a greater level of protection to the public in areas where it is perceived that there is a need to provide such protection.

  reply