POLITICS
The abeyancy of justice Gertrude Torkornoo is a mimesis of constitutional and procedural boob
The telling executions of constitutional laws are been entrenched into the docility of its prerequisite procedures. We cannot treasure the grandeur and asset of the constitutional laws when prosecuted in a haphazard, stochastic and jaundiced manner.
Every constitutional law has a well – embraced, dramatic and panoramic calibers and canons for its adoptions and there isn’t any legal trait, with which a person can arrogate to himself/herself the capacity to decoy the attested routes, even if there is a princely carrot.
The imperial adherence to every slice of the constitutional law not exclusively provokes graphic exploits to a country, but as well, it anchors the equilibrium of a country. Therefore, every citizen is obliged to insulate the fundamental axioms and framework and also, to shore the supremacy of the Constitution, so that, it staves off any barren infractions.
Indeed, Article 146(10)(a) of the 1992 Constitution commissions President to shelve Chief Justice on the dope of the Council of State in the case, where a petition (s) has/have been emanated for the expulsion of him/her.
Literally, i was in maximal thunderbolt when i chanced on this cranky bulletin of John Mahama having barred the Chief Justice fleetingly upon the acquiscence of those petitions _ is the legal directorate of the NDC Party prolifically resourceful and they subsist loafing around like this ?
This was the inaugural statement, which cropped up on my mind on the spot. The lethargic minds in the NDC Party are gelastic and it is time for them to hone their insipid minds.
The laxity of their leadership to assimilate the themes of the bearing of the constitution is installing them on the international land for outrageous razzing. It is ironic for them to package themselves as the pioneer of sapience and yet, they continue to yo – yo up and down in that cardinal sector.
The reflective navigation of Article 146(10) was gleaned from Article 146(5), to which the core component is flagged and accented on ‘ the erection of a committee ‘ in this regard. Before a deferment or dissolution of Chief Justice effectuates, a Committee must be planted by the president and once the Committee has been inaugurated _ then, it instigates and consummates the ‘ suspension ‘ process of the Chief Justice, thus Article 146(10).
Now, this is the discrimination of this scenario ; a Committee birthed by the president vis – à – vis this episode, wagers the ‘ suspension ‘ of the Chief Justice and also the ousting of him/her (i.e, if the Committee thrives in validating a ‘reasonable cause’ for his/her ostracism once its discoveries are gazetted).
But in the letter purveyed by Felix Kwakye, he trumpeted that, the president was yet to structure a Committee to wade through those petitions, required for the expulsion of the Chief Justice. It is peculiar and grotesque as to why, John Mahama perpetuates waiving and compromising the clarity of the Constitution, thereby spawning a sting to it.
That executive might, doesn’t give President, the overarching ordinance to recess Chief Justice before the licensed ‘ Committee ‘ is bowed.
Moreover, excepting the patent, vacuous and wanton delict of Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution, where it fleshes out on ‘ exercise of discretionary power ‘ for which, it elaborated on it that, every discretionary power must be ‘fair and candid’ ; must not be arbitrary, capricious or biased, thus being rooted in acrimony, prejudice or personal odium, John Mahama has kissed off and discounted the ascendancy of the court.
Before the dictum of the suspension of the Chief Justice, there was an injunction dictate, fronted by Hon. Vincent Assafuah. At this juncture, an injunction is a legal order that smother a person or entity from doing something or muscles them to do something.
Hon. Vincent Assafuah sought for an injunction ‘on notice’ as well, which angles that, it was made with notice to the government (as the defendant here), and its validity can tarry until the eventual determination of the case. As it was preached by Twumasi J. in Mensah v. Moro (1981) GLR728 at 732.
It is worthy to tab that, the injunction pursued by Hon. Vincent Assafuah was Quia timet injunction, which prohibits a course of action (and is often referred to as a Prohibitory Injunction). Once an injunction has been issued, one doesn’t have any other authorized legal wheeze to pad the exact assignment still, than to swallow the conditions of it.
So, any conduct that has the effect of unduly mucking about the fair and proper administration of justice may be deemed to be ‘contemptuous’.
The courts have supplementarily made specific pronouncements on this case of contempt. In unearthing the respondents liable for contempt for blanking an injunctive decree from a judge in the case of Republic v. Moffat and Others; Ex Parte Allotey [1971] 2 GLR 391-403, Abban J stated thus at p. 399:
“I would be laying down a very dangerous precedent if I were to hold that a party, when served with application for an order of prohibition from the High Court, can disregard or ignore the said application and treat the court with contempt, if he believes that the said application is misconceived.”
It is therefore, inimical precedent and inconsolable scene that, John Mahama designs to massage the posture of the law through wielding the presidential edge in order to quench his exploitative yen.
But for the fact that, we aren’t inhabiting and even sojourning in anarchical ambience, the laws will be galvanized fastidiously and routinely till we barricade the ruse of John Mahama for cuddling up to another presidential term _ we are on the qui vive with our armaments promptly by our sides in order to stuff the acquisitive man !
Source: Prof. Dinkum.
(The Buzzing Rapine Of Erudition)
E – mail : dinkumchoice@gmail.com
