DANGEROUS 'POLITICAL JUSTICE'
martin duodu
On 2 August 1998, Ghana Review International (GRI) reported as follows:
"Court rejects journalists' appeal.
*****************************
The [Ghana] Court of Appeal today rejected an application for bail for the
editors of the Statesman, Mr. Harunna Attah and Kweku Baako Jnr. of
the Crusading Guide. The Court presided over by Justices J. A.
Sarpong, Essilfie Bondzie and J. A Bennin ruled two-one against the
two journalists. It will be recalled that the two journalists were
sentenced to 30 days imprisonment for publishing libellous materials
against the First Lady, Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings. While the court
was sitting, a group of demonstrators calling themselves "Friends for
Rule of Law", led by Mr. Tei Okunnor, an assembly-man-elect, came
singing and shouting on the premises of the court in support of the
judiciary."
Earlier, on 27 July 1998, GRI had reported:
Journalists demonstrate in Accra.
**************************
A group of journalists, media practitioners, academicians, Members of
Parliament and other media sympathisers bearing placards and singing,
this morning staged a three-hour march to the Supreme Court buildings
in Accra to protest against what they say was growing threats to press
freedom in the country.
Some of the placards read "Prison or no prison we will write," "We
are not afraid of prison," "We will not surrender," and "How fair is
press freedom in Ghana."
The march, which started from the International Press Centre through
the Kwame Nkrumah Circle, Kojo Thompson Road through Makola Market,
ended at the Supreme Court.
Mr. Kwame Karikari, the Acting Director, of the School of
Communications Studies, University of Ghana, leader of the
demonstrators, presented a five-page petition to the Deputy Judicial
Secretary, Mr. George Afflah Aryeetey.
In the petition, the Friends of Freedom of Expression said since the
return of constitutional rule, there has been an emerging trend from
the decisions and sentences, which show that the courts are using the
law to cripple the media.
The petition said the spate of sentences and orders for arrest and
detention of journalists increasingly serve to cow courageous
journalists and [pose] a threat to others. It said the courts are now
becoming an institution to subvert press freedom," adding that the
fines being slapped on journalists and publishers over the months
point to a weakening of the media.
The group said the overwhelming majority of the sentences, decisions,
fines and damages are from cases involving high public officials or
top functionaries of the ruling government or people very close to
them.
They pointed out that they are not against the courts performing
their normal functions of interpreting the law and upholding justice,
nor do they intend to defend any act of irresponsibility by any
journalist if and when that occurs.
The group said it is concerned with developments, which are tending
to weaken the judicial system and the democratic process. The Police,
who were present throughout the march, had very little to do as the
demonstrators sang and chanted slogans like " All that we are saying
-- we want freedom of expression. "
These two reports indicate that there is serious concern in Ghana at the
moment over the emergence of what is called "political justice" in the
country.
'Political justice' usually occurs in countries where there is formal
constitutional rule, but where either because the judiciary is appointed by
the Executive, or is corrupt or both, or is of a cowardly disposition, or
somehow, shows a political bias in favour of towards the government in
power, cases of a political nature that come before judges, are usually
decided in favour of the government. In such a situation, opposition can
usually be silenced without recourse to totalitarian measures, such as
closing down newspapers, banning opposition parties or locking up people
without trial. Heavy fines are imposed on opposition newspapers to cripple
them, and journalists are imprisoned at the slightest opportunity.
Now, the dangerous thing about this state of affairs is that because the
dirty political work of the government is done for it by the courts, the
government can strut around the international community claiming that it is
observing 'The Rule of Law'. This is why 'political justice' can be even
more obnoxious than straight-forward dictatorial measures. For how does the
international community condemn a regime which "scrupulously" observes 'The
Rule of Law'?
The Ghana judicial situation is quite obviously unsatisfactory. The head of
the judiciary, the Chief Justice, has clearly lost the confidence of the
Association formed by his own legal peers, the Ghana Bar Association. So
much so that the Bar Association recently issued a statement publicising a
rumour -- can you imagine this: top lawyers being forced to actually
publicise a rumour -- claiming that the Judicial Secretary had been
instructed not to list the appeal of the jailed journalists for hearing,
before the courts went on the legal vacation, so as deliberately to create
a situation, whereby the journalists would have served their 30-day prison
sentences by the time the appeals were due to be heard! In most other
countries, the fact that the highest representative body of the legal
community -- from which the Chief Justice and his "brother judges" are drawn
and of which they are all past members -- should have publicly made such
concerns over a sensitive issue public, would have led to resignations,
either of the Chief Justice or the Judicial Secretary. But not in Ghana.
Yet our judiciary has more cause than most to be seen to acting
impartially always. This is because the judiciary has been infused with
members who were drafted in through the public tribunal system, appointments
to which were undoubtedly political, inasmuch as members of public tribunals
were appointed by the PNDC [Rawlings's military government of 1982-92] to
serve its own "revolutionary" purposes. Furthermore, there was serious
contention over the appointment of the Chief Justice himself. In these
circumstances, the judiciary, like "Caesar's wife," ought to act in such a
way as not to attract even the slightest whiff of bias, as that only goes
to prove the case of those saying, "We told you so!". Yet, as we see in the
GRI report, very highly respected persons are taking to the streets
demonstrating against the judiciary.
Now, political decisions by the judiciary, even in a country like Britain,on
whose traditions most of Ghana's own legal system is based, are filled with
"minefields." I would therefore implore the Ghanaian judiciary to look
carefully at the comments I am about to report below, and advise themselves
seriously, bearing in mind, the precepts enunciated herein by one of the
legal luminaries of Britain, Lord Denning, former Master of the Rolls.
The issue is revisited in The Independent of London of today, 15 August
1998, at Page 7 of the Review Section. It concerns a case that occurred in
Britain on 30 July, 1987, when the Thatcher Government tried to prevent the
publication in Britain of a book by a former MI5 (British secret service)
officer, Peter Wright, entitled "Spycatcher", which had already been
published in the USA.
The Thatcher Government had been granted an injunction to stop publication
of extracts from "Spycatcher" in British newspapers; the Vice-Chancellor
had refused to uphold this injunction, and the Thatcher Government then
appealed to the [judicial committee of the] House of Lords, the highest
court of law in Britain. There by a majority decision, split three to two,
the Law Lords found for the Government and continued the injunction to
prevent publication.
Commenting on this majority decision, Lord Denning wrote in The Independent
of 14 August 1987:
"Yesterday, 13 August [1987] the Law Lords gave their reasoned
judgement. One of them [of the Law Lords, that is] protested against the
media, saying that the case cried out for a sense of proportion, and that
the media had not shown it. All [the Law Lords] agreed, however, that there
was a question of balance. That is, of balancing two conflicting interests.
On the one side of the scale, there was the security of the state. Lord
Templeman, for the majority, declared that "It is the duty of the House [of
Lords] in its judicial capacity, to stand firm in order to prevent harm to
the security service, to preserve the right ad the duty of the court to
uphold within the jurisdiction, secrecy of the security service when
necessary."
"On the other side of the scale was the freedom of the press. Lord |Bridge
of Harwich, for the minority, declared that the key question was "whether
any remaining interest of national security ...is of sufficient weight to
justify the massive encroachment on freedom of speech which the continuance
of the injunction necessarily involves."
I [i.e. Lord Denning] find the reasoning of the minority, Lord Bridge and
Lord Oliver, more convincing than that of the majority. Each emphasised the
fact that the book was now freely available in the United States and even
here, and that it was ridiculous now to ban it here.Lord Bridge said: "The
maintenance of the ban as more and more copies of the book, Spycatcher
circulate here will seem more and more ridiculous...."
" Both Lord Bridge and Lord Oliver pointed out the danger which the majority
decision involved. Lord Bridge said, "Freedom of speech is always the first
casualty under a totalitarian regime... This is a significant step down that
very dangerous road. " Lord Oliver added that it involved the first step
along a very perilous path. Lord Bridge concluded his judgement, saying
emphatically of the majority, "I remain in profound disagreement with you."
So will many others who read the judgement. I would add this, though. If the
Attorney-General prosecutes any of the newspapers for contempt, what is a
judge of first instance to do? Is he to accept the majority judgements as
correct and impose a penalty, or is he to say, "There is so much difference
of opinion on the matter that I will treat you leniently"?
"This is my [i.e. Lord Denning's] concluding point. The Lords ought not to
have reversed the Vice-Chancellor, who refused an injunction, unless they
had been unanimous. Change the constitution [of the panel of Law Lords] by
one and the result might well have been different. NO INJUNCTION SHOULD BE
GRANTED IN THE FACE OF SUCH POWERFUL DISSENT" (Martin's Capitals.)
This opinion of Lord Denning's is relevant to the Ghana case because (1)
like the Ghana case, the substantive charge for subsequently disobeying the
Law Lords would have been "contempt of court" and (1) in both cases, there
was "strong dissent" and the case was decided by a majority of only one.
If, even in a well-established democracy like Britain, two powerful Law
Lords had occasion to warn that encroachment on freedom of speech was "the
first step down a very perilous path" and that "freedom of speech is the
first casualty under a totalitarian regime", how much more should we in
Ghana, a country that has just emerged into constitutional rule from
military dictatorship, beware such judgements?
Martin
Amber Laila
✅▶️▶️ CLICK HERE Full HD✅720p✅1080p✅4K✅
WATCH ✅💻📺📱👉https://co.fastmovies.org
ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ ✅📺📱💻👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
✅WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
💚WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
💚 Really Amazing ️You Can Try This💚WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>
🔴ALL>Movies>ALL>TIME>HITE>Save>LINK👉https://co.fastmovies.org
💚CLICK HERE Full HD>720p>1080p>4K💚WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>
🔴ALL>Movies>ALL>TIME>HITE>Save>LINK👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴📱ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴📺ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴📺ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org