The Supreme Court of Ghana may have ordered all the owners of Accra-based Montie FM to appear before it in the contempt case filed against the station and its presenter, Salifu Maase (Mugabe), as well as two other panellists, Alistair Nelson and Godwin Ako Gunn, who allegedly threatened to kill justices of the apex court, because they may want to unveil the true owners of the radio station, a senior law lecturer at the Ghana School of Law, Maxwell Opoku Agyeman, has said.

On Tuesday July 12, a shareholder of Montie FM, Edward Addo, appeared in the Supreme Court to represent all the owners of the company in the trial. However, the court did not understand why the other directors and owners of the radio station were absent.

An explanation by the lawyer for the owners of the radio station, Nana Ato Dadzie, that the other shareholders were out of the jurisdiction hence their inability to show up in court was rejected by the apex court.

They have all been ordered to appear before the court on July 18.

Speaking on this matter in an interview with Emefa Apawu on Class 91.3 FM’s news analysis programme, 505, on Tuesday July 12, Mr Opoku Agyeman said: “I believe that the court and the judges also know what corporate governance is, they know the status of incorporation. I believe that they know the roles and obligations and duties of shareholders, they know the duties of promoters, they may know the duties of the board of directors and they may know the duties of managers.

“In their wisdom, if they want to settle this matter once and for all…in this case you try as much as possible to lift the veil and find out those who are behind and to deal with all persons who are [behind]. But let me say that the mere fact that they (owners of Montie FM) are being invited does not mean they have been found culpable or guilty. They will go and explain, and then if you explain and there is no iota of evidence against you, of course nothing happens.

Mr Opoku Agyeman continued: “It is an invitation or summons… When you go to court and you explain…I think that those who are maybe involved or should have known because sometimes they know you or ought to know, those who should have known and failed, the omission on their part will also be considered.

“But if you are just a distant [person] who maybe participated in the incorporation of the company, maybe your shares may have been offloaded but changes have not been effected on the company’s register, all these things will be considered.

“So, maybe, that is the reason why the court is not 100 per cent sure of the ownership structure and those who are involved and, therefore, want everybody to come in. Who knows, it may even turn into a discussion and that they should warn. Let us wait and see. I believe that they have good lawyers, therefore, their lawyers know corporate governance and I hope they will raise all these issues about the liability, the extent of liability of a distant owner, owners who are involved. I think their lawyers are very capable and may be able to raise these issues.”