A delegation led by a Supreme Court Judge, Justice Gabriel Pwamang visited the Paramount Chief of the Talensi Traditional Area Tongraan Naab Kugbilsong Nanlebegtang and Talensi Traditional Council. The visit by the Supreme Court Judge and his delegation to the paramount Chief were centered on restoring the earlier relationship that exist between the traditional council and the Judicial service before the conviction of the two emissaries of the Overlord by High Court Judge Justice Alexander Graham. The purpose of the visit was essentially to reconstruct what appears to be a wounded relationship between the Council and the Judiciary in the region. Justice Gabriel Pwamang noted that the council was unhappy with the turn of events and described the incident at the Bolgatanga High Court as unfortunate. He indicated that the High Court Judge acted in a manner he deemed appropriate based on how the matters were presented before him. The Council however had reservations. The Tongraan expressed delight and reiterated that the invitation to the Judge was absolutely in good faith, without malice. The Overlord appreciated the gesture of the Council and pledged his commitment and that of the council to continue to work in harmony with the Judiciary in the region. He offered the delegation a bull as a sign of appreciation as custom demands. Other members of the delegation included High Court Judges, the President of the Ghana Bar Association, the Former Director General of Ghana Education Service Prof Amankwaa, and other senior staff of the Judicial Service. Source: Apexnewsgh.com/Ghana For publication please kindly contact us on 0256336062 or Email: apexnewsgh@gmail.com
Four Supreme Court nominees to face Appointments C’tee today
The four Judges nominated onto the Supreme Court bench by President Akufo-Addo will face the Appointments Committee of Parliament later today, the Public Affairs Directorate of Parliament disclosed in a statement. The nominees are Justice Barbara Frances Ackah-Yensu, Justice George Kingsley Koomson, and Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu Asiedu, all from the Appeal court. The only High Court judge who made the list is Justice Ernest Yao Gaewu. They were referred to the Appointments Committee for consideration after Speaker Bagbin announced their nominations in the House in July. Their appointment followed pending and projected vacancies at the Supreme Court this year. —Starrfm— For publication please kindly contact us on 0256336062 or Email: apexnewsgh@gmail.com
Minority rushed to supreme court to Prevent E-levy
The opposition minority caucus has petitioned the Supreme Court for an order of interlocutory injunction to prevent the Akufo-Addo-Bawumia led government through the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) from commencing with the implementation of the Electronic Transfer Levy (E-Levy) on the 1st of May 2022. Apexnewsgh.com/Ghana/Ngamegbulam Chidozie Stephen Please contact Apexnewsgh.com on email apexnewsgh@gmail.com for your credible news publications. Contact: 05555568093
Assin North MP ask not to represent his people in Parliament by Apex court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, April 13, 2022, has restrained Mr. James Gyakye Quayson from representing the people of Assin North until the final determination of a pending substantive case challenging the legality of his election. Meanwhile, members of his legal team have said they are not in agreement with the ruling of the Supreme Court restraining their client from holding himself as a Member of Parliament for Assin North. Apexnewsgh.com/Ghana/Ngamegbulam Chidozie Stephen Please contact Apexnewsgh.com on email apexnewsgh@gmail.com for your credible news publications. Contact: 05555568093
The least said about Rojo Nonoo and Kpessah Whyte’s testimony the better, their testimony was empty–Supreme Court
“In fact, regarding the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 , if their evidence is to be believed then they had to blame themselves for abandoning their post at the national collation centre at the time the verification and certification of the results were ongoing and PW3 had then verified and certified the regional collation results out of the 16.” this was according to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice in reading the verdict for the 2020 election petition has said that Rojo Mettle Nonoo and Kpessah Whyte’s testimony did not contribute anything to the case of John Dramani Mahama. According to the Chief Justice who was reading the verdict which is said to be unanimous said “Their testimonies were therefore of no relevance to the said issues set out for determination and so we find them unworthy for consideration whatsoever”. To the bench “The testimonies would have carried some little weight if the purpose of the petition was to change entries made on the collation forms or summary sheets but that is not the case”. The Chief Justice said the two witnesses should rather blame themselves for abandoning their duty of representing the interest of the petitioner in the strong room. Please contact Apexnewsgh.com on email apexnewsgh@gmail.com for your credible news publications. Contact: 0555568093
‘Criticise us as violently as you can but for Christ’s sake, don’t insult us’ – SC Justices to media
The Judiciary has said it is willing and happy to be criticised but not maligned and insulted. Speaking at a joint press conference organised by the Judiciary, the Ghana Journalist Association (GJA), National Media Commission and the Ghana Bar Association in Accra on Wednesday, 3 March 2021, a Supreme Court Judge, Justice Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, appealed to the media not to speak hatred of the Justices although they can freely be criticised. “His Lordship has said I should tell you that as trustees of the people’s power of justice, we are willing and happy to be criticised. Criticise us as violently as you can but for Christ’s sake, don’t insult us, don’t berate us, don’t speak hatred, don’t malign us. Don’t because like yourselves and the work that you do and the heart that you bring to bear on it, it’s a similar responsibility, it’s a similar consciousness with which judges embrace their work,” Justice Kulendi noted. The comment of the Justices comes after the media called the bluff of the Judiciary in a statement. The GJA had described as “obnoxious” and “threats to media freedom”, a warning issued by the Judicial Service through its lawyers Sory@Law, that it will take appropriate actions against media houses who fail to delete certain comments its clients – Justices of the Supreme Court – find hateful and vengeful of their work vis-à-vis the election petition hearing. The Judicial Service, in a letter to the media houses which, according to it, had published “hateful, spiteful, vengeful and incendiary” comments about the Justices of the Supreme Court, ordered the media platforms to “pull or cause to be pulled down and cleared from your platforms”, all such statements and speeches. The Judicial Service also demanded that those media houses, as well as all others, “prevent the publication of such statements and speeches on your platforms”, and “forthwith, exercise the highest level of discernment, discretion and responsibility insofar as the publication of statements and speeches regarding the administration of justice is concerned”. Responding to the letter a press conference on Monday, 1 March 2021, GJA President Affail Monney said: “If not reversed immediately, the ill-advised, ill-timed, ill-crafted and ill-issued statement by the Judiciary can provoke a tsunamic backlash, lower the dignity of the court in the eyes of freedom lovers and critical citizens, pollute the media environment, undermine our impressive media rankings globally and dim the beacon of our democracy”. Read the GJA’s full statement below: STATEMENT BY GJA PRESIDENT, AFFAIL MONNEY, AT A PRESS CONFERENCE HELD AT THE GHANA INTERNATIONAL PRESS CENTRE ON MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2021, IN REACTION TO THREATS AGAINST THE MEDIA BY THE JUDICIAL SERVICE Good morning, members of the GJA National Executive, our distinguished, ladies and gentlemen. A special welcome to senior members and veterans of our profession who have joined us at the Ghana International Press Centre, the citadel of press freedom and free expression as well as a bastion of our democracy. This hurriedly convened press conference has been triggered by a statement by the Judicial Service in which it ordered the media to “immediately pull down” from their platforms “statements and speeches which convey, and/or insinuate hateful, spiteful, vengeful, incendiary communication against justices of the Supreme Court, especially, those hearing the election petition. Furthermore, the media must prevent the publication of such statements and speeches”. The Judicial Service then threatened to take, what it called, “appropriate action to ensure that the media do not abuse the right to free speech.” Ladies and gentlemen of the media. The GJA is, to put it mildly, dumbstruck in reading this obnoxious directive pregnant with insidious threats to media freedom in Ghana which is touted as a land of freedom and justice. With all due respect, this is scandalous. Unsurprisingly, our telephones have been flooded with calls, both local and international, from journalists, media watch organisations, defenders of press freedom and free expression, seeking to know what exactly was happening since that contentious statement by the Judicial Service was issued. It is universally acknowledged that media right is not absolute, but qualified. And legal experts teach us that such qualification must chime with the dictates of the law, due process, and must be exercised in such ways as to achieve legitimate aims and objectives. In crafting the scandalous statement, the GJA is principally of the view that the Judicial Service ought to have avoided any impression or situation that has the tendency to instill fear and promote a culture of silence into which Ghana had been enveloped during the period of autocratic misrule. Criticism, they say, is a gift which all arms of government need. So it will be miscarriage of fairness to deny the Judiciary that gift. Ann Landers once said “the naked truth is better than a well-dressed lie”. Contextually, the naked truth is that the Judicial is not immune to criticism. However, that criticism must be done in a manner that does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. To this end, the GJA urges the media community to be calm, and not to be led into temptation to scandalise the court with unhinged comments or verbal stones, no matter how provocative the statement of the Judicial Service might be. The GJA will like to remind its members that far from acting on the basis of any threat or intimidation to “immediately pull down” from their platforms as requested, the media should rather act in the spirit of the GJA Code of Ethics that says: “A journalist corrects inaccuracies and mistakes at the earliest opportunity and offers a chance for a rejoinder and/or an apology as appropriate”. It is lodged in our memory that the Judiciary has the power to commit any erring journalist or media house for contempt, using, of course, acceptable protocols, and appropriate mechanisms. What they should not consider at all in this context is any unprecedented or antiquated method which smacks of censorship, intimidation or resuscitation of the culture of silence which can spell unthinkable socio-political consequences. The GJA is
Run-Off is required as no Candidate got 50 Percent of valid votes’ cast – Mahama to Supreme Court
The Petitioner in the 2020 election Petition trial says a run-off is required since no candidate in the December 7 polls obtained 50 percent valid votes cast. The case of the Petitioner is simply that, in addition to fundamental constitutional infractions committed by the Electoral Commission chairperson, who was the returning officer of the Presidential Election, the figures announced in the declaration she herself made on December 9, 2020, no candidate got more than 50 percent of the valid votes cast and, as a constitutional consequence, a run-off election would be required. These were contained in former President John Dramani Mahama, the petitioner’s closing address filed by his lawyers at the Supreme Court. Mr Mahama argued that the evidence from the terms of the declaration and the consideration that the EC Chairperson said were the basis of the declaration she was making, led to the conclusion that “Nana could only be credited with 49.625 percent of the votes at the time.” Mr Mahama said “The fact that Petitioner is not indicating in this Petition what he or the other candidates should have obtained compared to numbers declared by the EC, cannot lead to a conclusion that the declaration by the EC Boss is constitutional.” According to Mr Mahama his own figures are “not relevant to determining whether that claim is well-founded or not.” Mr Mahama invited the court to take judicial notice of the fact that, ahead of the December 7, 2020 elections, political parties were urged not to seek to announce results based on figures they had collated but to wait the official declaration of the EC Boss as the returning officer for the Presidential Election. He explained that the EC under provisions of Articles 43-54, 56 (7), 63 and 65 of the Constitution and CI 127 is charged with the conduct of the Elections. Mr Mahama said “the starkly untenable nature of the claim that the petitioner should have put towards his own figures is put in sharp relief when it is recalled that, by virtue of Article 64 (1) of the Constitution, any citizen of Ghana can present a petition challenging the validity of the election of the president. A citizen, in bringing such a challenge, would not be required to indicate the exact number of votes that candidates ought to have obtained. Being a candidate does not change qualification for bringing such a Petition and cannot require more than any other citizen.” He recalled that “No one is asking Nana Addo either to bring his figures or the number of votes he and other candidates got, nor has Nana put forward his figures in this petition as that would have no relevance in the court before the court.” Accordingly, the Petitioner discharged the burden of proof that was on him. The Petitioner avers that “the unsigned press statement was not only correcting the alleged wrong total valid votes cast figures announced by Mrs Jean Mensa in her declaration on December 9, 2020. It also went on, explicably, to adjust the votes obtained by candidates Mahama and Akuffo-Addo as declared for them on December 9, 2020. Votes of other candidates were also adjusted.” All this, the Petitioner said was done outside the framework provided by CI 127 and particularly, without the involvement of the agents of the candidates, contrary to the requirement of Articles 49 (2) and (3) of the Constitution and Regulation 44 (10) of CI127. “Paragraph 29-30 of the amended Petition are very clear on how the Press Release issued on December 10, 2020 compounds the lack of transparency, fairness and candour of the 1st Respondent (EC) in the ever-changing figures,” the Petitioner said. The Petitioner said the figure in the purported “correction” as to the total valid votes cast was itself repudiated by first Respondent (EC) by the time the answer to the Petition was filed on January 9, 2021. “It defied logic that the 1st respondent (EC) issued a “correction” on 10th December 2020 to a figure which is now claimed to have been the actual figure purported on Form 13 on December 9, 2020.” Mr Mahama said “in the midst of changing figures of total valid votes cast as well as votes of individual candidates, it simply cannot be said that the overall results on Form 13 were not affected, especially when the figures claimed to have been form 13 are different from figures in the “correction” on December 10 2020.” He contended that there were discrepancies in figures provided for candidates of other parties and “the material increase of Akuffo-Addo whiles at the same time materially reducing the votes of the Petitioner clearly requires explanation.” Mr Mahama said fundamentally, there was no evidence from the EC on the basis of which any of its contradictory claims could be accepted as “the truth.” Petitioner held that attempt to “effect a correction by an unsigned press release is wholly untenable.” According to the Petitioner the testimony of the three witnesses for the Petitioner showed clearly not only the breach of the duty to be fair and candid under Article 23 of the Constitution but also the lack of due process in terms Article 296 of the Constitution. Petitioner submitted that when matters of breaches of the Constitution or of Statute arose before a court there was urgency about addressing those breaches. Mr Mahama said the conduct of the EC Chairperson in sending the agents of a major candidate who should have been present in the resolution of the outstanding issues leading to the declaration and “immediately going ahead to make the declaration without even the required steps under the Regulation 44(10) were self-evidently unreasonable.” Ghana Guardian Please contact Apexnewsgh.com on email apexnewsgh@gmail.com for your credible news publications. Contact: 0555568093
Election petition: SC to deliver judgment 4 March
The Supreme Court has set Thursday, 4 March 2021 to deliver judgment in the ongoing election petition. This was announced by the Chair of the seven-member panel of judges, Chief Justice (CJ) Kwasi Anin Yeboah during the hearing on Tuesday, 22 February 2021. Meanwhile, the court has dismissed a third review application filed by former President John Mahama, the petitioner in the ongoing election petition, which prayed the court to overturn its own ruling of 16 February 2021, in which it denied Mr Mahama the opportunity to reopen his case. “The application under review was dismissed because it was not based on known law or rules of practice. We dismiss the instant application and we hold it without merit”, Chief Justice ANin Yeboah read out in court on Monday, 22 February 2021. Prior to Monday’s ruling, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, the lead counsel for Mr Mahama, had argued that the court “prejudiced” its “fair exercise of discretion” in denying his client the opportunity to reopen his case in the earlier ruling. The ordinary court, on Tuesday, 16 February 2021, ruled unanimously that “a mere filing of a witness statement is not an election to testify”. Chief Justice Anin Yeboah read: “As we’ve already indicated in this ruling supra, the petitioner in this application has not given us an inkling of the new or fresh evidence he wants to bring to the fore through the Chairperson of the first respondent and how that evidence could assist the court to do justice to the matters under consideration in this petition. Neither has he disclosed how that evidence will advance the cause of his petition. “For the above-stated reasons, we find no merit or favour in the petitioner’s application to reopen his case for the sole purpose of compelling his adversaries’ intended witness to testify through a subpoena without indicating the sort of evidence he intends to solicit from the said witness and how that evidence is going to help the court in resolving the dispute before us. We accordingly refuse the application and proceed without any hesitation to dismiss it”, the ruling said. Classfm Please contact Apexnewsgh.com on email apexnewsgh@gmail.com for your credible news publications. Contact: 0555568093









