The contour in Ghana's anti-speech laws and judicial doctrine

Read Article

Comments (10)

This article is closed for comments.

Read Comments Comments (10)

Nii Teiko 7 years ago

I don't know the law but I am also against the the president appointing an AG of his choice. How could the NDC AG proffer criminal charges against the 3-Muntie snippets/rapists who are related to the NDC in one way or the oth ...
read full comment

I don't know the law but I am also against the the president appointing an AG of his choice. How could the NDC AG proffer criminal charges against the 3-Muntie snippets/rapists who are related to the NDC in one way or the other? . Those 3-criminal buffoons would be insulting and inciting violence today if the SC had not put their stinking ass in jail. Cases like this do not need the correct application of the law as some of you are suggesting. We cannot sit down for any idiot to plunge the nation into war. The AG and the BNI FAILED to do their work, and the SC had no choice than to let the Muntie Braggarts to smell their own Zongo shit in jail. Thumbs up SC.
NYANSAPO 7 years ago

"'The issue here is about whether it was legally appropriate for the Supreme Court to step in and use its inherent criminal contempt powers to cage the three...."' Isn't this statement contradictory? If the supreme court has ...
read full comment

"'The issue here is about whether it was legally appropriate for the Supreme Court to step in and use its inherent criminal contempt powers to cage the three...."' Isn't this statement contradictory? If the supreme court has inherent criminal contempt powers, how can its use be questioned as "legally appropriate"? May be you want to ask whether it is politically, socially or morally appropriate. Why are people like Kwasi Prempeh and Kwaku Asare talking about criminal;ising free speech. Will any of them sincerely utter "half" of what the montie trio uttered. If not why not? Is it because they know that it is wrong and that freedom of speech even in in America and the united kingdom is regulated. If as suggested by kwasi prempeh the matter had been taken over by the A.G would that have ceased to be criminalisation of free speech.Why are we behaving as if the SC is criminalising criticism. Has it ever occurred to Kwaku Asare why his usually caustic and ascerbic comments against the judiciary and the SC in particular have gone unpunished? It is because he manages to keep his comments within the confines of free speech, fair comments and criticisms!In case Kwaku Asare and Kwasi Prempeh have forgotten their laws on contempt, let me educate them. The Montie Trio were neither punished for insulting or threatening Georgina Wood or gbadegbe, nor criticising the judgment given by the SC in the judgment already given, but they were cited for contempt for scandalising the court; for comments that were prejudicial to the matter that was pending before it. And in case their professorial minds can still not comprehend the foregoing, Let them read the following three statements below they will see that one of them is contemptuous
1. The custodial sentence given by the SC is too harsh and smacks of bias
2 If the SC gives custodial sentence it will be too harsh and will be bias.
3In view of the prevailing circumstances I think a custodial sentence will be harsh.
Every lawyer worth his salt will see that the second statement is contemptuous while the other two ARE NOT AND THEY KNOW WHY.
And as for those who are talking of punishment, you do not brazenly commit an offence, go to court and own up , apologise and prescribe your own punishment!
KOFI ELLISON 7 years ago

Akwasi, you’ve really not said anything, your unimpeachable record notwithstanding. You cannot eat your cake and have it. You are really dancing around the matter.

You write:

"Had the Attorney General dutifully prosec ...
read full comment

Akwasi, you’ve really not said anything, your unimpeachable record notwithstanding. You cannot eat your cake and have it. You are really dancing around the matter.

You write:

"Had the Attorney General dutifully prosecuted the three, they would very likely have been found guilty and appropriately sentenced to terms of imprisonment longer than four months."

Well, you know, and I know, and others know; that the Attorney General of Ghana is compromised by her inaction. The rush to sign petition by otherwise respectable people like Prof Jane Agyeman, the Minister of Education, and former Vice Chancellor of the University of Cape Coast underscores the timidity that afflicts those who are beholden more to government largesse by way of political appointment, rather than following their conscience. It is sad.

Therefore, it behooves the Supreme Court to right matters. And that is exactly what the Supreme Court did. Bravo to them.

Should the president of Ghana employ the so-called Article 72 to quash the sentence, he would be doing so not because of any legal requirement or defense of free speech; rather, he would be doing a political hatchet job on Ghana and her people.

(I am Kofi Ellison, and I approve this message.)
KOFI ELLISON 7 years ago

My response was NOT intended for "NYANSAPO."...it's for HKP

My response was NOT intended for "NYANSAPO."...it's for HKP
Okonko Palm 7 years ago

The position of the antagonists is mainly political and the legal arguments emanate from that.The truth of the matter is that it is no secrete that the press and radio sations or media generally have all fallen short of journ ...
read full comment

The position of the antagonists is mainly political and the legal arguments emanate from that.The truth of the matter is that it is no secrete that the press and radio sations or media generally have all fallen short of journalistic ethics where the various station were vying for who could be more offensive and rudness became its culture.Both the right wing press and the left wing press and indeed there was the need for something to be done.

It is how the sc went about it which was the bone of contention.Apart from the obvious breach of natural justice and the rule against bias and here aside with Azar,the sc posited a political position giving advantage to the right wing media who dominate the air space any way.

Radio station rudeness became the culture of the day and a clear warning and message should have been sent to the various media against intemperate language and threats with serious repercussions after the Muntie three had been made to purge the contempt with an apology and a caution to be of good behavior.

The stance of the court been its own investigator, prosecutor and judge at the same time polarize the legal fraternity.One would have thought that a summary proceedings in contempt is when the contempt is direct and not when it is indirect which take the normal criminal procedure path.

The sc had polarized opinion and the constitutional committee should look at the sc power under contempt and see whether there is the need to do something.At it stands now, the sc had become all too powerful and therefore making some of their decisions suspect and unacceptable.
nana addo 7 years ago

Prof Prempeh stop dancing around the issue and doublespeak

Prof Prempeh stop dancing around the issue and doublespeak
Koobenja 7 years ago

There's NO "Professor Azar"!

It is "Professor Asare"!

Details matter, in "case" issues!

There's NO "Professor Azar"!

It is "Professor Asare"!

Details matter, in "case" issues!
OKARA CUDJOE 7 years ago

The children of today will sometimes become the grandfathers of tomorrow. With the benefits of history and evolving perspectives, positions change. Yesterday's illiberals could be champions of today's liberalism! Let's suppor ...
read full comment

The children of today will sometimes become the grandfathers of tomorrow. With the benefits of history and evolving perspectives, positions change. Yesterday's illiberals could be champions of today's liberalism! Let's support free speech but also oppose judicial tyranny. The court cannot constitute itself into investigator, prosecutor and ???whatever. Without justifying the actions of the Monte 3,(which should be condemned and criminalized) this is judicial tyranny.
Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 7 years ago

There is a tension here between the boundaries of free speech and the limits of judicial power of contempt.

The Prof addresses neither.

How do we propose that we will preserve the former with the arbitrariness of the la ...
read full comment

There is a tension here between the boundaries of free speech and the limits of judicial power of contempt.

The Prof addresses neither.

How do we propose that we will preserve the former with the arbitrariness of the latter? How do we know what to say and when if protected speech leads to any type of prosecution, whether under contempt laws or regular criminal laws?

That is why Prof. Asare's position is the clearer and better one: He takes a clear position that speech ought not lead to any criminal prosecution, and I agree with him.

If the prosecution of the Montie 3 could have occurred under any law, then it is simply harmless error if prosecuted under the contempt law.

But the larger issue is the slippery into tyranny of the judiciary if the Supreme Court is allowed to continue with its prosecution of speech. Where does it begin and end?

That is why there is a compelling public policy reason to stem this tide of judicial arbitrariness by the Supreme Court of Ghana.

And the test for the boundaries of free speech should replicate Brandeburg v. Ohio, 396 US 444. In this seminal case, a speech is mere vapor unless it induces imminent lawless action.

Nothing the Montie 3 said induced "imminent lawless action".
Yaw 7 years ago

So what is your stand? These gentlemen cannot be referred to as rogues but that is your right. Threats to life should not be allowed in our politics. However, there have been worse instances than this but some people must be ...
read full comment

So what is your stand? These gentlemen cannot be referred to as rogues but that is your right. Threats to life should not be allowed in our politics. However, there have been worse instances than this but some people must be scapegoats.

The contour in Ghana's anti-speech laws and judicial doctrine

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 (10)

Read Comments Comments (10)