[ 2016-07-28 ]

Arthur Kennedy 'scolds' Supreme Court over Montie 3 sentencing
A former presidential hopeful and member of the
opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP), Dr. Arthur
Kennedy says he is disturbed at the way the
Supreme Court handled the infamous Montie 3 saga.


In a statement expressing his opinion on the
sentence handed the trio in the matter of contempt
against the court, Dr. Kennedy said, ''I am on
record as against the insults, threats and
violence in our politics. I have called for a
cleaning of our airways. I was one of the students
who protested the 1982 murders and got dismissed
for that. However, I am disturbed by how this
incident was handled.''

According to him, per the ruling he is "...
persuaded that the Supreme Court's handling of
this case has brought it more disrepute than what
was said on MUNTIE fm."

The apex court on Wednesday July 27, 2016
sentenced presenter Salifu Maase aka Mugabe,
Alister Nelson and Godwin Ako Gunn to four months
imprisonment.

The two political commentators had threatened the
lives of judges during the hearing the Abu Ramadan
and Electoral Commission saga over the voters'
register.

Presiding judge Sophia Akuffo reading the
sentences said the third and fourth contemnors
Alister and Ako Gunn wilfully attacked the Chief
Justice and lowered the authority of the court by
insisting that they will not accept its judgment
on a controversial matter of the voter's register.


She added, the convicts callously reminded the
court of the gruesome murder of three High Court
judges more than 30 years ago.

She pointed out that there is an element of
criminality in their utterances which the
Attorney-General should have noticed and acted
upon.

Dr. Arthur Kennedy in his statement said,
''Justice Sophia Akufo was right that, "There is
an element of criminality in their utterances
which the Attorney - General should have noticed
and acted upon."

If this is the case, can the Supreme Court now
assume the prosecutorial powers of the Attorney
General?'' He also raised concerns why the
directors of the station could be held liable to
what their employees or panelists say.

Below is the full statement from Dr. Kennedy

THE SUPREME COURT AND MUNTIE FM

The Supreme Court has sentenced the MUNTIE Fm
panelists and their host, Mugabe to jail terms
for: -- Scandalizing the court -- Defying and
lowering the authority of the court -- Bringing
the court into disrepute In addition, it has
convicted a Director of NBC, the owners of MUNTIE
fm. Now, I am on record as against the insults,
threats and violence in our politics. I have
called for a cleaning of our airways.

I was one of the students who protested the 1982
murders and got dismissed for that.

However, I am disturbed by how this incident was
handled. Indeed, I am persuaded that the Supreme
Court's handling of this case has brought it more
disrepute than what was said on MUNTIE fm.

Impartiality is a central tenet of impartial
justice. Regardless of how one feels about the
MUNTIE panelists and the others, the judges of the
Supreme Court were not impartial in this case. By
acting as prosecutors and judges in a case
involving threats to their lives, they dealt a big
blow to impartial justice in our country.

Nobody would accept that a judge can sit on a
case involving a threat to his wife or father. And
they can sit in judgment of threats to their own
lives?

Justice Sophia Akufo was right that, "There is an
element of criminality in their utterances which
the Attorney - General should have noticed and
acted upon." If this is the case, can the Supreme
Court now assume the prosecutorial powers of the
Attorney General?

The other aspect of this case that should bother
all of us is the breath of its reach. Can the host
of a program be held to account for the opinions
of his guests? If this is indeed the case, no host
of any program is safe.

Furthermore, in a nation that prides itself on
the freedom of its press, can the Director of a
company be held liable for what a guest or even
the host says on a program on the network of his
company? My next point is how graphically this
brings home the inconsistency in the enforcement
of our laws.

Others, who are more powerful have issued bigger
threats in our politics and had no actions taken
against them, including MP's, flag-bearers and
Presidents. If we wanted to set examples, why not
them? Is a threat against judges any more ominous
than a threat against an entire tribe or the
public at large?

While on the issue of the reputation of the
court, why did they not deal with those who
accused them of bribery in the Election petition?
Why did they not, in defense of their reputation
deal with the judges who were caught taking
bribes?

Next, I was disappointed by the level of advocacy
provided by counel for the accused. He never
raised the question of whether the threats were
backed by the knowledge and resources sufficient
to execute them.

He never raised the question of conflict of
interest involved in judges sitting in judgment of
those accused of threatening them.

The GJA response was disappointing. They should
have challenged the dangerous idea inherent in the
court's decision that the host of a program and
the owners of a station can be held accountable
for the opinions of their guests.

That notion is inconsistent with free speech and
the protections for journalists inherent in our
constitution.

We must not destroy freedom of the press in
pursuit of legitimate protections for our judges.
Finally, the President and Parliament must sit up.


The President must be asking the A-G why nothing
was done. Parliament, as part of executive
oversight, must be asking the A-G why nothing was
done.

Source - rainbowradioonline.com

... go Back