Avoid certain political cases - Dr. Kojo Asante urges Supreme Court

Read Comments Comments (7)

• ROGUE LAWYER 1 month ago

  The Supreme Court of Ghana sole duty is to interpret the constitutionality of any case that brought before them,
  so I agree with him because some cases that goes before them could be referred to the High court TO DEAL with i ...
  read full comment

  The Supreme Court of Ghana sole duty is to interpret the constitutionality of any case that brought before them,
  so I agree with him because some cases that goes before them could be referred to the High court TO DEAL with it.
  if those cases passes through the legal MILL , and it landed before the Supreme Court- at the Supreme Court The judges are just going to look at how fair the process was, and either the ruling by the appeal court must stand or be rejected. if they take such an advise their direct links to biasms would be reduce because at that point , they are not looking at the case but technicalities that led to the decision of the high court and the Appeal court.
  I sometimes feel very embarrassed for allow a Rogue Lawyer like Akuffu Addo to destroy some fine judges integrity , all because Akuffu Addo has given them some appointments and they want to pleased him.
  who is Akuffu Addo ? prior to 2016 election ?
  he was nothing , a cert less lawyer, the best place of Him is prison because you cannot practise law without a legal education and certificate-
  K4 Vs TSASTU abaaaa

  reply

  report
• AK 1 month ago

  I didn't get the head and tail of the story until I read the first portion of your statement which was understandable. However you went off track with a political conclusion tainted with hatred for Nana Addo. Can't we stay of ...
  read full comment

  I didn't get the head and tail of the story until I read the first portion of your statement which was understandable. However you went off track with a political conclusion tainted with hatred for Nana Addo. Can't we stay off politics sometimes? Just for intellectual discussions.

  reply

  report
• Kofi 1 month ago

  Asante is a blessing is a blessing to our country, Men like him revives my hope that we can still do better for out country. Our supreme in recent times has been an unmitigated disaster. They have worked against the interest ...
  read full comment

  Asante is a blessing is a blessing to our country, Men like him revives my hope that we can still do better for out country. Our supreme in recent times has been an unmitigated disaster. They have worked against the interest of the state. Take the Domelevo's case for example. His own sacking and his case against Zoomlion. Which Supreme court in the world would behave the way they did? Those slimy and highly discredited men and women of the apex court makes me want to throw out. These shameless morons should not be paid by the tax paper.

  reply

  report
• OPEN UR GATE WITH EASE. NHM. 1 month ago

  Save the stress now. Remotely open your home gate or industrial gate with your phone anywhere. Make your life easier with Justrac SMART GATE MOTORS to open and close your gates the smart way. Visit: www.JustracAfrica.com AS2 ...
  read full comment

  Save the stress now. Remotely open your home gate or industrial gate with your phone anywhere. Make your life easier with Justrac SMART GATE MOTORS to open and close your gates the smart way. Visit: www.JustracAfrica.com AS2E

  reply

  report
• KofSam 1 month ago

  If a bill is passed by all 275 members of parliament , there is no need for any Supreme Court intervention. That is how things should work in a normal democracy since all the three branches of government are equal . The only ...
  read full comment

  If a bill is passed by all 275 members of parliament , there is no need for any Supreme Court intervention. That is how things should work in a normal democracy since all the three branches of government are equal . The only time a Supreme Court gets involved is when people need the law to be interpreted.
  The LGBTQ bill should never have come come to the Supreme Court if parliament approved the bill unanimously.
  It is quite baffling that there are very important cases before the SC but they have to call an emergency hearing on the appointed ministerial nominees during the reshuffle by Akuffo Addo .
  When a president terminates an appointment but re-assigns the same person that is something for the Supreme Court to clarify. But they chose cases that suits them politically . Law is blind but cases in Ghana are seen with partisan biases.

  reply

  report
• Mr Ibu 1 month ago

  The supreme court or stupid court cannot refused to adjudicate political cases

  The supreme court or stupid court cannot refused to adjudicate political cases

  reply

  report
• Ex-Pope 1 month ago

  As long as those Justices are beholden to the politician who appointed them to the Court, you can expect them to be lackeys of that President, and they will do the bidding of that President without any regard to judicial prin ...
  read full comment

  As long as those Justices are beholden to the politician who appointed them to the Court, you can expect them to be lackeys of that President, and they will do the bidding of that President without any regard to judicial principles. These Justices are seasoned lawyers and Justices who know damn well that a case should not be entertained if brought prematurely regarding a parliamentary bill that has not yet been signed into law. Such a useless petition normally would have been summarily dismissed by the Court. But the is Court has decided to engage in political justice, hence its decision to entertain the petition before it that deals with LGBQT bill that has not yet been acted on by the President. How does a Supreme Court knowingly entertain a matter dealing with a bill that has not yet been signed into law when that Court knows damn well that it has no authority to dictate to Parliament how to legislate? Had the President signed that bill into law, then a petitioner would have cause to seek relief from the Supreme Court if that petitioner felt the law was unconstitutional or harmful to others.

  reply

  report