Read Comments Comments (7)

• Unpredictable Oye Onye Kwasi Atta 1 year ago

  When did that idiotically village champion idiot know that? Why has he allowed all state institutions including the EC to be parties to siuts but want to vary the legislature?
  
  No worries. Your days are numbered. 7th Decem ...
  read full comment

  When did that idiotically village champion idiot know that? Why has he allowed all state institutions including the EC to be parties to siuts but want to vary the legislature?
  
  No worries. Your days are numbered. 7th December is drawing nearer to thee.

  reply
• Ghana Observer 1 year ago

  The court is the jury and the judge in a case against it. The decision was written days ago. The court sees the action by the speaker as an affront to it and so will deliver a judgment that favours it.

  The court is the jury and the judge in a case against it. The decision was written days ago. The court sees the action by the speaker as an affront to it and so will deliver a judgment that favours it.

  reply
• EDWARD 1 year ago

  This Godfred Dame (Mr No shame) aka Jakpa tape is as stupid as the Chief Justice - both political wings of NPP

  This Godfred Dame (Mr No shame) aka Jakpa tape is as stupid as the Chief Justice - both political wings of NPP

  reply
• MODE3 GYIMII NOAA. THE SUPREME COURT HAS NO POWER ON PALIAMENT AND IT AFFAIRS 1 year ago

  NPP HAS DESTROYED THE COURT AND THE JUDICIARY

  NPP HAS DESTROYED THE COURT AND THE JUDICIARY

  reply
• Godfred 1 year ago

  Who would trust an AG that has his own definition of things? The court is literally 3 against 1

  Who would trust an AG that has his own definition of things? The court is literally 3 against 1

  reply
• Christopher Ang-Nieten Dassah 1 year ago

  Is there any person who doesn't have the right to defend his or her integrity?

  Is there any person who doesn't have the right to defend his or her integrity?

  reply
• Osman 1 year ago

  Dear Godfrey,
  Your argument stands, if, and only if your office and the Supreme Court was perceived as independent and non party motives in all legal matters. Unfortunately that's not the case. So, Bagbin has a right to pr ...
  read full comment

  Dear Godfrey,
  Your argument stands, if, and only if your office and the Supreme Court was perceived as independent and non party motives in all legal matters. Unfortunately that's not the case. So, Bagbin has a right to privacy of his legal instructions to his chosen agent.
  This is a lesson for future Government, too much politicisation of public institutions costs the tax payer more.

  reply