Cameron Duodu writes: Lawless law enforcement

Read Article

Comments (34)

This article is closed for comments.

Read Comments Comments (34)

The Okro one 8 years ago

It is wrong to suggest that once the legislature passes an Act and the court decides on its application then it's game over. Not true.

When a court decides a statutory case by explaining what parliament meant, the legislat ...
read full comment

It is wrong to suggest that once the legislature passes an Act and the court decides on its application then it's game over. Not true.

When a court decides a statutory case by explaining what parliament meant, the legislature is free to come back and say wrong this is what we meant.

However, when lets say, the SC decides on the constitutionality of a case, then that's it nobody can say fokko. This distinction is important.
Justinian 8 years ago

Maybe you can tell us how the Legislature communicates with the Court when it decides that the Court's interpretation of the Act is wrong? Does Parliament send its Clerk to the Court? Or is it the Speaker? How does Parliamen ...
read full comment

Maybe you can tell us how the Legislature communicates with the Court when it decides that the Court's interpretation of the Act is wrong? Does Parliament send its Clerk to the Court? Or is it the Speaker? How does Parliament decide to send someone to the Court? On what sort of motion? Please supply examples of where and how this has happened, so that we can all learn from it.

I doubt, though, whether you have much to teach anyone, for you don't seem to understand the processes involved in making laws. You write correctly that when the Supreme Court decides on a case, then that is the end of it. But you limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to "constitutional issues:".

I am afraid that view is totally wrong. As the apex court in the Ghanaian judicial system, the Supreme Court has the final say in ALL cases, not just constitutional cases. If Parliament does not like the interpretation put on an Act by the Courts, all it can do is to amend the Acts to reflect its true wishes or intent. Parliament cannot communicate directly with the judiciary to engage in disputes over the interpretation of laws.
The Okro one 8 years ago

Justinian

You are right, I limited the SC jurisdiction. I did this only for the purposes of explains my point. It is without a doubt that the SC has jurisdiction in the following areas:

1. Original exclusive jurisdicti ...
read full comment

Justinian

You are right, I limited the SC jurisdiction. I did this only for the purposes of explains my point. It is without a doubt that the SC has jurisdiction in the following areas:

1. Original exclusive jurisdiction on interpretation of constitutional matters under Article 2 and 130 (1)(a) and (b)

2. Appellate and review jurisdiction under articles 131 and 133

3. Review jurisdiction of its own decisions under article 133(1)

4. Jurisdiction in relation to production of official documents under article 135(1)(3)

The SC has the final say in all the above matters save for the interpretation of an Act of parliament. The SC decision on the interpretation of an Act of parliament which is a co equal branch of government is not final. Parliament can come back and clarify what it really meant in the Act.

I do understand the "processes involved in making laws." Our laws originate from the constitution, acts of parliament,common law and any orders, rules and regulations made by any person or authority under powers conferred by the constitution.
Awiraakua 8 years ago

THE OKRO ONE:

You wrote:
"The SC has the final say in all the above matters save for the interpretation of an Act of parliament. The SC decision on the interpretation of an Act of parliament which is a co equal branch of ...
read full comment

THE OKRO ONE:

You wrote:
"The SC has the final say in all the above matters save for the interpretation of an Act of parliament. The SC decision on the interpretation of an Act of parliament which is a co equal branch of government is not final. Parliament can come back and clarify what it really meant in the Act."

Justinian asks you HOW Parliament can ""come back and clarify what it really meant in the Act." You are silent on that. Please if you do not know something, don't dabble in it and waste people's time. Where did you ever hear of Parliament, in a democracy, sending envoys to the court to clarify what Acts of law mean? You think you can change systems by patapaaa thinking? You think it is so, therefore it is so?
The Okro one 8 years ago

Your initial question in asking "how the legislature communicates with the court demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the whole process.

FYI, parliament can alter a courts decision through the amendment of the Act ...
read full comment

Your initial question in asking "how the legislature communicates with the court demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the whole process.

FYI, parliament can alter a courts decision through the amendment of the Act at issue. Parliament does not have to submit its disagreement via the clerk or through its speaker
Larami 8 years ago

Hasn't someone else made it clear that Parliament can change a law by amending it? Why can't you accept that and drop your empty notion that Parliament can challenge the interpretation of an Act's provisions by a court?

Hasn't someone else made it clear that Parliament can change a law by amending it? Why can't you accept that and drop your empty notion that Parliament can challenge the interpretation of an Act's provisions by a court?
Wells 8 years ago

This is very insightful. On the surface what is written is correct. The purpose of democracy is for individual governmental agencies to work with laid down laws and rules. This means government cannot take the laws of the lan ...
read full comment

This is very insightful. On the surface what is written is correct. The purpose of democracy is for individual governmental agencies to work with laid down laws and rules. This means government cannot take the laws of the land for granted neither the citizens. So therefore if a part of the government that interpret laws makes a ruling, it must be adhered to. If the government of the day feel aggrieved, they should appeal, but not take the law into their own hands. And do what we term as disobeying the law. We are not in a banana republic whereby laws/rulings are disobeyed. Cameron well written and please write more.
Nana Adjapong NTRA SAKYI 8 years ago

Do we learn? If we do Ghana will not be as it is after 59 years of independence.

Do we learn? If we do Ghana will not be as it is after 59 years of independence.
Captein 8 years ago

In extra ordinary times you take extra ordinary action!

In extra ordinary times you take extra ordinary action!
Ataa Annan 8 years ago

What extraordinary times? You think we still live under military rule? If we did, Woyome would have been shot by now; the contracts over the supply of power would have also ended in some serious investigations in which some ...
read full comment

What extraordinary times? You think we still live under military rule? If we did, Woyome would have been shot by now; the contracts over the supply of power would have also ended in some serious investigations in which some people's liberty would have been at risk, etc. etc. We live under the Rule of Law and everything must be done lawfully. Otherwise we invite the very chaos that the laws seek to prevent.
Kodjo 8 years ago

This circuit judge for some reasons bypassed the establish norm where accuse persons who have been granted bail remain in police protection until their bail bond had been discharged.

She instead made a bizarre order that t ...
read full comment

This circuit judge for some reasons bypassed the establish norm where accuse persons who have been granted bail remain in police protection until their bail bond had been discharged.

She instead made a bizarre order that the accuse persons be under the protection of the registrar until their bonds are executed.Why did she think that these people deserve special privileges not accorded to the ordinary Ghanaian.Something smells fishy here.Was she influenced to make such a discriminately order,the whole approach was wrong.

As for the accuse persons being taken into custody by law enforcement,they were just carrying out their legitimate duties because if they had released the accuse to the registrar and something happens,it will be their fault.

And finally my understanding is that they were handed over to immigration who were there to take them into their custody for breach of our immigration conditions which allowed them into the country.In other words they did not not disobey the court but are being on an unrelated case before the court namely immigration.Subsequently it resulted in their removal to SA for breach of our immigration laws.
Arizona Kid 8 years ago

This your contribution is full of contradictions, Kodjo. You don't understand the law.

The correct procedure is to obey the order to release the persons on bail and if you have a further case against them, re-arrest them a ...
read full comment

This your contribution is full of contradictions, Kodjo. You don't understand the law.

The correct procedure is to obey the order to release the persons on bail and if you have a further case against them, re-arrest them and put them again before a court.

If the BNI knew the men had another case to answer, then why did they not tell the judge about it? The judge cannot decide on something he/she has not been addressed on in court! On the other hand, the judge could have
taken judicial notice oif the BNI's attitude and conclkuded that she mnust make an order to put the men in the hands of the Registrar, othrerwise her granting them bail would be an exercise in futility. A judge with many counsel assisting her in reading the situation correctly, would show more savvy than you think. You can smell as much fish as you like -- all the smell emanates from the BNI and the ultimate rotten head who decides everything, President Mahami of Kenya.
Kodjo 8 years ago

Immigration cases are handled by immigration officers under the immigration rules.Breach of the immigration rules is treated as civil but in this case there was a criminal element of training dissidents.

In the criminal as ...
read full comment

Immigration cases are handled by immigration officers under the immigration rules.Breach of the immigration rules is treated as civil but in this case there was a criminal element of training dissidents.

In the criminal aspect a nolle prosequi to the court will be enough to cure any procedural defect.I believe a formal withdrawal of the criminal aspect has been done and the immigration aspect has also been handled with a removal of the illegal immigrants as a result of breaching their conditions of entry.

Note,this is not deportation which is different from administrative removal.
Baah 8 years ago

When and how was a nolle prosequi obtained from the court? You don't say!
Are you just lying to throw dust into out eyes or what?

I do not see how the same judge who granted the bail that was disobeyed by the BNI would j ...
read full comment

When and how was a nolle prosequi obtained from the court? You don't say!
Are you just lying to throw dust into out eyes or what?

I do not see how the same judge who granted the bail that was disobeyed by the BNI would just meekly allow the case to be withdrawn in the guise of a nolle prosequ application. Did she ask about the bail order? Or was it a different judge? Even a different judge would have probed a bit into the case before granting a nolle prosequi application. Please make yourself clear: when,, how, and where was the alleged nolle prosequi granted?

Secondly, you make noise about the Immigration Service and the civil aspect of the matter.Did the BNI consult the GIS before taking the matter to court? Or was it handed to the GIS onlu after the BNI had bulldozed its way to court with a criminal charge and had its nose bloodied? Those who want to uphold the law must themselves act lawfully -- this is the message from the old sage, Cameron Duodu, which guys like you don't understand.
SHOWBOY 8 years ago

EXCELLENT PIECE WELL WRITTEN.WITHOUT POITICAL COLOR
KNOWLEDGE OF OUR SENIOR CITIZENS WHO HAVE HAD GOOD QUALITY EDUCATION IS ALWAYS IGNORED .GOD KEEP YOU

EXCELLENT PIECE WELL WRITTEN.WITHOUT POITICAL COLOR
KNOWLEDGE OF OUR SENIOR CITIZENS WHO HAVE HAD GOOD QUALITY EDUCATION IS ALWAYS IGNORED .GOD KEEP YOU
Captain Jean-Luc Picard 8 years ago

Well, Cameron is a wonderful autodidact. He learnt much of what he knows today on his own. He didn't attend any higher institutions - not even secondary school.

Perhaps his colonial basic education was wonderful but I beli ...
read full comment

Well, Cameron is a wonderful autodidact. He learnt much of what he knows today on his own. He didn't attend any higher institutions - not even secondary school.

Perhaps his colonial basic education was wonderful but I believe the man was just naturally brilliant and talented as a child.

When you are gifted, you can achieve a lot even without a PhD!!!
Spinola 8 years ago

Captain Jean-Luc Picard,
Do you know Mt Cameron Duodu? Where did you get the information about his educational background?

The man may be clever, but he couldn't have reached his high standard without systematic study of ...
read full comment

Captain Jean-Luc Picard,
Do you know Mt Cameron Duodu? Where did you get the information about his educational background?

The man may be clever, but he couldn't have reached his high standard without systematic study of some sort. No-one can rise to become an editor several times over and a Correspondent of some of the world's most prestigious media by using only naural talent.

In other words, Captain, please don't give the impression that Mr Duodu is so good only because he has natural talents. Natural talent without hard work -- and this includes working hard to pass the necessary examinations without which one cannot progress in any field. I think I read in Wikipedia that Mr Cameron Duodu took private correspondence courses to pass his exams.
Sam Lawyer 8 years ago

Spinola,
I think the point you make is well taken. Nobody can use only natural brilliance to advance in life. You need curiosity, which will make you want to read a lot and seek information wherever it can be found.

In Mr ...
read full comment

Spinola,
I think the point you make is well taken. Nobody can use only natural brilliance to advance in life. You need curiosity, which will make you want to read a lot and seek information wherever it can be found.

In Mr Cameron Duodu's Gold Coast, there were such organisations as The University of Ghana Extra-Mural Studies Department, which provided structured courses in all manner of subjects, conducted by University Graduates. I think the People's Educational Association (PEA) was also involved.

But above all, there were opportunities to learn on the job. In this article we are discussing, Mr Duodu says he was covering court proceedings for the Ghana Broadcasting System when Mr Justice Smith made his observations on the Indemnity Act. The Ghana Broadcasting System would certainly not send someone to cover a controversial court case who had not acquired a creditable knowledge of the law, either by covering court proceedings or taking a course at PEA classes. Mr Duodu also says he was a Parliamentary Correspondent for the GBC. You can't learn law better than sitting day after day in the place where laws are made.

I just point these things out to warn people that "natural talent" is not enough. A person must alkso be curious, and the curiosity should lead him to seek education, whether formally or informally. Mr Duodu may be an auto-didact, but one who consistently and tirelessly sat at the feet of learned folks.
Dread 8 years ago

This article is too much for the average Ghanaian voter to comprehend.

This kind of intellectual discourse means nothing to our near illiterate voters who have now resorted to choosing our leaders at the "pooling" instead ...
read full comment

This article is too much for the average Ghanaian voter to comprehend.

This kind of intellectual discourse means nothing to our near illiterate voters who have now resorted to choosing our leaders at the "pooling" instead of Polling stations.

Illiteracy levels in Ghana is frightening yet it is benefiting some people.

We would remain solidly in the Third World, and gradually slip to the 4th.

i would be surprised if you get more than ten comments on this article.
Esi 8 years ago

Mr. Duodu,

I am a big fan of yours and enjoy reading your column in NA magazine.

Thank you for your refreshingly well thought, well-written and unbiased piece which seems quite out of place on Ghanaweb.

Mr. Duodu,

I am a big fan of yours and enjoy reading your column in NA magazine.

Thank you for your refreshingly well thought, well-written and unbiased piece which seems quite out of place on Ghanaweb.
Captein 8 years ago

Came Gharon everything you said may be rational peribus ceteris.
In extra ordinary times you take extra ordinary measures. Terrorism should not be taken lightly this day and age.You kno San Benedino shootings in USA, Paris a ...
read full comment

Came Gharon everything you said may be rational peribus ceteris.
In extra ordinary times you take extra ordinary measures. Terrorism should not be taken lightly this day and age.You kno San Benedino shootings in USA, Paris and Brussels bombings, the Laneca in Cyprus Egypt Air fiasco etc. and
The Okro one 8 years ago

Captain, will you have terrorists in custody released?

Captain, will you have terrorists in custody released?
Captein 8 years ago

Certainly, not right analysis! NPP should not be trusted.

Certainly, not right analysis! NPP should not be trusted.
Faham 8 years ago

Captain, maybe you should call yourself RSM because you couldn't have passed your promotion exam from lieutenant to captain and be writing such rubbish. If the NPP was disposed towards unconstitutional rule, would it not have ...
read full comment

Captain, maybe you should call yourself RSM because you couldn't have passed your promotion exam from lieutenant to captain and be writing such rubbish. If the NPP was disposed towards unconstitutional rule, would it not have challenged the decision of the Supreme Court to give the presidency to Mahama?

In order not to harm Ghana's economy, the NPP didn't even ask for a "full-bench" review of the Supreme Court decision (because this would have elongated the time Ghana did not have a fully confident government).

And if the NPP didn't want to cause economic harm, how much more political harm which would have resulted from alutas and other instances of civil rebellion? Please thinlk before you write.
Akora Oteng 8 years ago

And that is tantamount to DICTATORSHIP. Beware ,NDC government.

And that is tantamount to DICTATORSHIP. Beware ,NDC government.
chelo 8 years ago

I used to read the articles of this man but his resent writings made me to know he is one of the npp. I wish he could maintain his balance.

I used to read the articles of this man but his resent writings made me to know he is one of the npp. I wish he could maintain his balance.
Thomas Osei 8 years ago

Yes,Cameron Duodu is one of the most outstanding journalists of yesteryears.We need more of your informative and though-provoking articles.

Yes,Cameron Duodu is one of the most outstanding journalists of yesteryears.We need more of your informative and though-provoking articles.
Aunty Araba 8 years ago

How can he appear "balanced" to you if you approach his articles with a biased mind? Should he stop thinking in order to please you? That is the sign of a bigot; a sensible person says, ""I know how this man writes. If he is ...
read full comment

How can he appear "balanced" to you if you approach his articles with a biased mind? Should he stop thinking in order to please you? That is the sign of a bigot; a sensible person says, ""I know how this man writes. If he is saying this, then there must be something in it." Then you analyse the article on its own merits, not on what you would have liked him to write! If your analysis shows something you disagree with, you point it out. That is how non-illiterates approach a discussion
Marquis 8 years ago

Bizarre decision by Judge and and you don't complain? God forbid that these should have been allowed and train those guys for them to have killed innocent citizens. Then people like Cameron would have questioned the BNI and s ...
read full comment

Bizarre decision by Judge and and you don't complain? God forbid that these should have been allowed and train those guys for them to have killed innocent citizens. Then people like Cameron would have questioned the BNI and state securities. Ghana first my dears
xxx 8 years ago

who is going to kill innocent citizens, it is the lawless NDC hooligans who are roaming about terrorizing innocent people; it is everybody's responsibility to protect themselves and the action the NPP took in training their s ...
read full comment

who is going to kill innocent citizens, it is the lawless NDC hooligans who are roaming about terrorizing innocent people; it is everybody's responsibility to protect themselves and the action the NPP took in training their supporters to protect themselves was in order
Arabicus 8 years ago

If that is your attitude, then why didn't you ask the Government to execute "the terrorists"? Save the judiciary the task of exercising their brains over the matter, no? Isn't that what some of you would like done? "We've ca ...
read full comment

If that is your attitude, then why didn't you ask the Government to execute "the terrorists"? Save the judiciary the task of exercising their brains over the matter, no? Isn't that what some of you would like done? "We've caught the chaps. Bring some sticks and break their necks!" It is called lynching -- and is carried out by lawless mobs, not state institutions called BNI!
G. K. Berko 8 years ago

The case of the Yemeni Gitmo 2 is not the same as this. Be real! You guys always let partisanship cloud your good judgment. Why?

Not even Cameron is immune to that partisanship. He is a long supporter of Akufo-Addo and the ...
read full comment

The case of the Yemeni Gitmo 2 is not the same as this. Be real! You guys always let partisanship cloud your good judgment. Why?

Not even Cameron is immune to that partisanship. He is a long supporter of Akufo-Addo and the UP/NLM side of Ghanaian Politics. I have followed him for a long time, since his early days at the Economist (West African Economist, it used to be dubbed)

Look, every eloquent person, especially, a journalist of Cameron Duodou's caliber could find the words to turn 'White' into 'Black' in perception. We have seen that in many Political systems, including the USA's.

So, don't let his eloquence steal your analytical acumen from you, if you really care about the truth.

Now, one thing you and Cameron may have conveniently ignored is the diplomatic undercurrents involved in the case. Even though the South African Embassy had said in the Public that Ghana ought to apply her Laws as they are in this case, given the cordial relationship between the two countries, it would not be surprising that some silent pleadings might have taken place to soften the Government's action on the Mercenaries.

Meanwhile, no country where Law and order prevail would allow foreigners to simply walk in under false pretenses to engage in any action with dire political consequences. Period.

All other noises we are hearing to justify the activities of the 3 S. Africans are side-issues that might have any relevance in the adjudication of the case itself.

Akufo-Addo cannot honestly justify his procuring of any Militia for his protection, while he has been an ardent critic of Nkrumah for doing the same, and his outfit had also fought Yaw Boateng Gyan, the former NDC Organizer, for contemplating similarly. What could be more hypocritical than that?!

Long Live Ghana!!!
K Anim. 8 years ago

Cameron, l always enjoy reading your very insightful articles. We wish mother Ghana has many more such seasoned authentic knowledgeable journalists of your standing and caliber. Kudos and keep it up. And to ...
read full comment

Cameron, l always enjoy reading your very insightful articles. We wish mother Ghana has many more such seasoned authentic knowledgeable journalists of your standing and caliber. Kudos and keep it up. And to you Cudjoe, you need to be reminded that Ghana now lives under a civilian DEMOCRATIC dispensation (no more autocratic civilian /military buga buga), where the rule of law must reign supreme to guarantee our fundamental rights,freedom and liberties. The fact that the three South Africans have been forcibly removed from the country should not be the end of the saga. To give unambiguous meaning to the fact that the rule of law and due process is alive in Ghana, the Chief Justice or the presiding Judge must consider issuing summons to officials from both the BNI and the immigration service to be hauled before the courts to explain why they must not be cited for contempt for disobeying and flouting lawful court orders? And to make sure that such misbehavior on the part of so called powerful public officials never happens again. If the South Africans were guilty of any crime they should have had their day in court and not deported on the blind side of the courts.
Sammy Lawyer 8 years ago

Mr ANIM,
You've got it exactly right.The BNI has been playing tricks with the courts, and the Chief Justice and the other judges must rise up and face the challenge.

First the BNI used the court to give the impression t ...
read full comment

Mr ANIM,
You've got it exactly right.The BNI has been playing tricks with the courts, and the Chief Justice and the other judges must rise up and face the challenge.

First the BNI used the court to give the impression that the men had been arrested lawfully, when they had been arbitrarily incarcerated, If the court had NOT granted them bail, would the BNI have disobeyed the court AND RELEASED THEM? No! The BNI was only interested in getting the court to rubber-stamp its arbitrary decisions.

When the court made orders about the bail conditions and the passports of the men, the BNI used FORCE to disobey the judge. That is the worst contempt anyone can commit against the judiciary. Suppose ordinary citizens went into court and removed from the dock, citizens being tried for offences upon which the police had arraigned them? Wouldn't armed force be used to arrest the violent citizens?

What is the difference between presumably armed BNI operatives removing the prisoners from the court against the wishes of a judge, and citizens storm9ing a court to deprive a judge of the rigfht to try the accused person(s)?

NONE! The BNI, under Mahama, is therefore on rebellion against the laws of the state of Ghana and the Constitution of the state of Ghana.
The Chief Justice is the only person who can end that rebellion -- by standing by her sister judge and committing the high state officials behind the action, for contempt. Otherwise, the judiciary will be considered as a joke by the citizenry of Ghana, and will be defied and mocked at every turn. Orders given to grant people bail will be mocked with such statements as "Go and bring the BNI to free them!" Do out judges want to become the butt of an unending joke?

Cameron Duodu writes: Lawless law enforcement

Read Comments .st0{display:none;fill:#14BDD3;} .st1{display:none;} .st2{display:inline;fill:#FC0F0F;} .st3{display:inline;fill:#FFFFFF;} .st4{display:inline;fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:6;stroke-miterlimit:10;} Comments (34)

Read Comments Comments (34)