[ 2016-08-27 ]

Montie 3 remission legal but disappointing – GIMPA Lecturer
at the Ghana Institute of Management and Public
Administration (GIMPA) Business School has said
beside the raging debate about the legality of
President John Mahama’s remission of the
sentences of the Montie 3, the move is wrong.

Dr Jemima Nunoo said she is disappointed that the
President remitted the four months sentences
handed to Alistair Nelson, Godwin Ako Gunn and
Salifu Maase, who were jailed by the Supreme Court
for scandalising the court and bringing it into
disrepute.

“I am not an expert but I can safely say what
the President did was legal. It has legal backing.
But it is not everything that is legal is
beneficial. Neither is everything that is legal,
constructive,” she said on Joy FM/MultiTV's news
analysis programme, Saturday.

The triad were freed on Friday after a month in
jail following the President's invoking his
Prerogative of Mercy under Article 72 of the
Constitution and granting them remission.

They were jailed on July 27 by the Supreme Court
after they had threatened to kill and rape judges
during a political talk show on pro-National
Democratic Congress (NDC), local language radio
station Montie FM.

the sentencing of the trio, legal and governance
experts have been divided about the legality of
the President’s capacity to exercise invoke
Article 72.

Some cited aspects of the Constitution to back
their view that it was legal, others countered
this position by presenting a different
intepretation of those same aspects of the
Constitution.

However, speaking on Newsfile, Dr Nunoo said
because the freed ex-contemnors are known NDC
activists, the President’s decision presents
grave consequences for the political space.

She says because Alistair Nelson, Godwin Ako Gunn
– the two panelists and the host of the
programme, Salifu Maase, are known NDC
sympathizers and activists, their release by the
ruling party can be perceived to mean that the
President has abused his power of discretion to
favour members of his party.

“It’s all about perception,” she said.

She surmised that considering that the three,
“not once, not twice but over a continuing
period have been involved in character
assassination, insults, vilification, all manner
of unscrupulous things and one incident has led
them to be found guilty of contempt,” they
should have served their full sentences.

“It was not about freedom of speech. They
threatened death and rape. It is very serious,”
she said in dismissing arguments that the three
were exercising their democratic right to free
speech.

She said contrary to what others have said, the
four month jail sentence was not harsh.

The President’s action, she said, sets a bad
precedence.

Source - Myjoyonline.com

... go Back