Akyea, Ayikoi And A Supreme Court Botch

Read Comments Comments (5)

• Mr. Figure-Out 9 years ago

  I don't blame Obuasi lady, Aunt Araba Nyame, who changed her dog's name to Atuguba immediately after he read the court verdict.

  I don't blame Obuasi lady, Aunt Araba Nyame, who changed her dog's name to Atuguba immediately after he read the court verdict.

  reply
• Kwadwo 9 years ago

  Ayikoi Otu's antics in the Court room that day was bizarre indeed. What if he did not personally know Some of the Justices? Would his client have received long prison sentences? The least said of Atuguba the better.

  Ayikoi Otu's antics in the Court room that day was bizarre indeed. What if he did not personally know Some of the Justices? Would his client have received long prison sentences? The least said of Atuguba the better.

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 9 years ago

  Asante Fordjour, this a very interesting article with good legal arguments. I wonder why you did not post it either during or shortly after the SC petition hearing.
  
  Regarding the question of charge sheet demanded by Atta-A ...
  read full comment

  Asante Fordjour, this a very interesting article with good legal arguments. I wonder why you did not post it either during or shortly after the SC petition hearing.
  
  Regarding the question of charge sheet demanded by Atta-Akyea that you addressed under Strategy but not exclusively, what we should remember is that this matter was unusual because it happened at the SC. SC normally does not deal with charge sheets because that is a matter for lower courts. The SC normally would deal with legal matters and the correct interpretation of statutes by lower courts where charged sheets would have been dealt with. For these reasons the SC could not be faulted for that approach. Moreover, we should remember the SC is similar to Parliament when it comes to rules of engagement. In other words, the SC could make its own rules as it sees fit and as and when necessary.

  reply
• Asante Fordjour 9 years ago

  Hi Kofi
  Thanks for your inputs and the questions which I address as follows:
  
  [1] The Supreme Court and the Demanded Charge Sheet- This is resolved with reference to Re Pinochet: The Supreme Court functions within the conf ...
  read full comment

  Hi Kofi
  Thanks for your inputs and the questions which I address as follows:
  
  [1] The Supreme Court and the Demanded Charge Sheet- This is resolved with reference to Re Pinochet: The Supreme Court functions within the confines of rules of law and natural justice. Accordingly, it could not have been fair on the part of the panel judges to deliberate on a matter which they felt personally scandalized. I sense Akyea’s request was to infer that the case was in a wrong forum.
  
  [2] In my judgement, the Court quickly shot Akyea down because of the fear for what an elaborate plea in mitigation might bring in that circumstance. Please note that since the case was deemed as sentencing hearing rather than normal criminal trial but without regards to any earlier debate on right to defence, Ken Korankye’s “not guilty plea” shifted the burden proof on the Supreme Court.
  
  [3] ..And by the rules of natural justices and here, the right to defence in a fairly and opened court, and remembering that the Supreme Court is not beyond reproach, the 9-member judges could not have risked exposing themselves as prosecutors and judges in a matter in which they are personally interested. By the dictates of the Nemo Rule, Korankye & Co. could have raised a possible bias.
  
  [4] On the question of why the current publication, you might have noticed that in law as in history or other disciplines, commentaries and analysis have no time-bar. I refresh your memory on the Re: Akoto and the Salla Cases. The mysterious murder case in London dubbed- “Jack The Ripper” of 1888, is currently being reconsidered in a book titled: “Naming Jack the Ripper”, by Russell Edwards, described by Deutche Welle reporter- Kate Brady, as self-proclaimed "armchair detective". [see, “New book names Jack the Ripper”].
  
  [5] Thus, I respectfully restate here that while morally; I applaud Nii Ayikoi-Otoo for his solemn plea, legally; it appears to me that it neither helped in the establishment nor the development of the law concerning contemptuous trial/sentencing.
  
  In conclusion, you might agree that a legally defective ruling knows no time-bar for scrutiny. It shall always be evaluated, criticized and applauded even beyond the grave of the decision-maker.

  reply
• Omanhene 9 years ago

  Good information,thank you.

  Good information,thank you.

  reply