Following the contempt proceedings against Ken Kuranchie, Stephen Atubiga and Boahen in the Supreme Court, criticism has emerged against the procedure adopted by the Supreme Court. The supporting block of this criticism seems to be some dicta by AKUFO-ADDO C.J. in REPUBLIC v. LIBERTY PRESS LTD AND OTHERS [1966] GLR 123-138 HIGH COURT, ACCRA 5 FEBRUARY 1968 The said dicta can be found at pages 135 and 136 of the report. I reproduce them below verbatim. ``The common law position has always been that the procedure by summary trial and by indictment are alternative procedures depending on the character of the contempt. Where the contempt is clear and unambiguous the procedure for trial has always been by summary trial, whereas in a case where the contempt is not all that clear and certain indictment has been the appropriate procedure, and I know of no principle of law or procedure which requires that the forum for the trial of contempt is determinable by the choice of procedure.`` Page 135 ``In so far as my decision embodies any general conclusions affecting the jurisdiction of the courts in contempt matters, it is referable only to contempt ex facie curiae (out of court) as distinct from contempt in facie curiae which is always dealt with "on the spot," so to speak, without any intervention by the Attorney-General applying for writs of attachment.`` Page 136 I respectfully think the criticism is unfair, misplaced and uninformed. The Liberty case was a High Court Judgment; never mind that the Chief Justice delivered it. Each day the Superior Courts sit, to a certain extent, our Common Law is in a state of flux; new legal principles emerge to displace existing ones. Rather than heap opprobrium on the Supreme Court, the decision should be embraced for what it is-the law. My view is anchored on the following Article from the 1992 Constitution and after quoting them, I shall add any no further comment. Article 129 (2) The Supreme Court shall not be bound to follow the decisions of any other court. (3) The Supreme Court may, while treating its own previous decisions as normally binding, depart from a previous decision when it appears to it right to do so; and all other courts shall be bound to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court on questions of law. Within these limits and within the further limits set by the legitimate exercise of the freedom of thought and expression criticism of judicial acts is free. The press both high and low must fully realise and appreciate that there is no such species of the freedom of thought and expression as press freedom. The freedom which the press enjoys is no less and no more than the freedom of thought and expression which the humblest illiterate citizen of Ghana enjoys. Applying the brief definition of contempt of court which I have stated above, it is difficult to imagine a more blatant form of contempt than that which is embodied in the article under consideration, and, as the Attorney-General put it, "that article contains all the types of contempt known to the law."
Posted on: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 05:01:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015