{"id":86060,"date":"2013-06-30T01:51:17","date_gmt":"2013-06-30T05:51:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/uncategorized\/is-supreme-curtailing-freedom-of-expression.php"},"modified":"2013-06-30T01:51:17","modified_gmt":"2013-06-30T05:51:17","slug":"is-supreme-curtailing-freedom-of-expression","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/freedom\/is-supreme-curtailing-freedom-of-expression.php","title":{"rendered":"Is Supreme Curtailing Freedom of Expression?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    Feature Article of Sunday, 30 June 2013  <\/p>\n<p>    Columnist: Ata, Kofi  <\/p>\n<p>    By Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK  <\/p>\n<p>    In the wake of the Supreme Court hauling the Deputy    Communication Director of NPP before it on Wednesday June 26,    2013 to explain his accusation of the Justices being selective    and hypocritical in singling out the Daily Guide and the    subsequent invitation to three others to appear before it on    July 2, 2013, a number of articles have appeared on Ghanaweb    not only attacking the actions and decisions but also the    Presiding Justice as well as accusing him or the Justices of    threatening freedom of expression and press freedom. In this    article, I will briefly examine the right to free speech and    press freedom and their limitations with specific reference to    Prof Stephen Kwaku Asares two articles (Justice Contempt,    Ghanaweb July 28, 2013 and Petition to the Chief Justice of    Ghana, Ghanaweb, July 29,2013).  <\/p>\n<p>    I should point out that, I am not dialectically opposed to all    the views expressed by Prof Asare in the two articles, except    to say that, I take a different approach to discussing the    subject of freedom of expression and or press freedom within    the specific context of the current environment in Ghana, and    specifically, the presidential petition.  <\/p>\n<p>    Prof Asare has quoted various legal authorities to support his    view that, by their actions, the Supreme Court is either    stifling freedom of expression or intimidating the public from    expressing their opinions on the petition or their decisions. I    need not repeat those authorities, except to re-examine those    of Lord Denning and Judge Salmon, which he quoted in both    articles and I quote:  <\/p>\n<p>    It is the right of every man, in Parliament or out of it, in    the press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment, even    outspoken comment, on matters of public interest. Those who    comment can deal faithfully with all that is done in a court of    justice. They can say that we are mistaken, and our decisions    erroneous, whether they are subject to appeal or not. All we    would ask is that those who criticise us will remember that,    from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their    criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy. Still less    into political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself    to be its own vindication. Exposed as we are to the winds of    criticism, nothing which is said by this person or that,    nothing which is written by this pen or that, will deter us    from doing what we believe is right; nor, I would add, from    saying what the occasion requires, provided that it is    pertinent to the matter in hand. Silence is not an option when    things are ill done. On that same case, Judge Salmon said    the authority and reputation of our courts are not so frail    that their judgments need to be shielded from criticism.  <\/p>\n<p>    In my view, Asare has misinterpreted or misapplied the above by    not taking cognisance of two critical issues that Lord Denning    justified the right to freedom of expression and or free press    vis--vis the offence of contempt of court. I am referring to    the first two sentences of the quote. The question we must ask    or answer is, are those who have been making comments and or    criticising the Justices are doing so fairly and    faithfully?  <\/p>\n<p>    I am tempted to say that Sammy Awuku might have been fair in    saying that the Justices were selective in singling out one    newspaper but was he fair in describing that decision as    hypocritical? Was he making the comment and or criticisms    faithfully? The obvious answer is, absolutely not. All those    who have been the subject of the Supreme Courts directives have    not commented and criticised the Justices in good faith. They    all have both partisan and personal interests in doing so. For    example, Sammy Awuku is by association, a party to the petition    and therefore he stands to gain from the petition being upheld    either by becoming a minister in an Akufo-Addo government or    being appointed into some public position. The same is    applicable to those from NDC because they stand to lose the    opportunities they may be enjoying or hope to enjoy if the    party continues to be in government. The same applies to the    pro NDC and NPP media because they stand gain by way of    advertisement and contracts depending on which party is in    government.  <\/p>\n<p>    Can we also confidently say that the authority and reputation    of Ghanas judiciary are not so frail that their judgments need    not be shielded from criticism as Judge Salmon stated? In fact,    it is not only the Judiciary in Ghana that is weak but all the    three institutions of governance are weak (the Executive,    Legislature and the Judiciary). Indeed, almost every    institution in Ghana is weak and may not withstand such    hostile, erroneous and misleading criticisms which could lead    to loss of confidence in the judgement of the Justices. Such    loss of confidence could directly lead to supporters of the    losing party not accepting the final verdict of the justices    and resorting to violent demonstrations and agitations across    the country that could trigger conflict in the country and    threaten the peace and security of Ghana.  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>More here: <\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.ghanaweb.com\/GhanaHomePage\/NewsArchive\/artikel.php?ID=278252\" title=\"Is Supreme Curtailing Freedom of Expression?\">Is Supreme Curtailing Freedom of Expression?<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> Feature Article of Sunday, 30 June 2013 Columnist: Ata, Kofi By Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK In the wake of the Supreme Court hauling the Deputy Communication Director of NPP before it on Wednesday June 26, 2013 to explain his accusation of the Justices being selective and hypocritical in singling out the Daily Guide and the subsequent invitation to three others to appear before it on July 2, 2013, a number of articles have appeared on Ghanaweb not only attacking the actions and decisions but also the Presiding Justice as well as accusing him or the Justices of threatening freedom of expression and press freedom. In this article, I will briefly examine the right to free speech and press freedom and their limitations with specific reference to Prof Stephen Kwaku Asares two articles (Justice Contempt, Ghanaweb July 28, 2013 and Petition to the Chief Justice of Ghana, Ghanaweb, July 29,2013). I should point out that, I am not dialectically opposed to all the views expressed by Prof Asare in the two articles, except to say that, I take a different approach to discussing the subject of freedom of expression and or press freedom within the specific context of the current environment in Ghana, and specifically, the presidential petition <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/freedom\/is-supreme-curtailing-freedom-of-expression.php\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"limit_modified_date":"","last_modified_date":"","_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-86060","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-freedom"],"modified_by":null,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86060"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=86060"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86060\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86060"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86060"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86060"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}