[ 2021-02-27 ]

President of Think Tank IMANI Africa, Franklin Cudjoe

You can’t gag us – Franklin Cudjoe tells Judges, Judicial Service
President of Think Tank IMANI Africa Franklin
Cudjoe has told the Judges in the country that
they cannot gag the public from criticizing their
rulings and work in the court of law.

According to him, so far as Lawyers go for appeal
and reviews on rulings made on issues, there is
the need for the public to call out Judges when
their rulings are seen as unfair.

To him, what the Judges need to do about vile
comments about them is not to gag critical voices
of their work but rather focus on dragging
individuals who make unsubstantiated claims about
their work.



He indicated that this will bring sanity but not
trying to gag people who make constructive
critique of their work.

Franklin Cudjoe said: “Lawyer Thaddeus Sory is a
great brain. He is lawyer for Judges, who through
him have given a stern warning to all media houses
not to publish vile, hateful and incendiary
comments against Judges who are just doing their
work. Frankly some parts of that letter to media
houses were condescending. However, we have taken
the lesson, but will they also stop listening to
everyone who writes about them? They should just
find a few rogues who really say things they
can’t prove in court and punish them, then all
others will stop. I have used that formula
recently and it works. ????????. However, they
cannot tell us that we cannot say there has been
unfair rulings ever- else what would be the need
for appeals and reviews? Thanks to Anas Aremeyaw
Anas we heard heard some Judges love goats too. We
all love goat pepper soup”.

Meanwhile Read The Letter From The Judiciary Here

25TH FEBRUARY 2021.

TO ALL MEDIA HOUSES,

GHANA.

RE: INCENDIARY, HATEFUL AND OFFENSIVE STATEMENTS
AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY.

1. We write as solicitors for and on behalf of the
Judicial Service of Ghana (simply referred to
hereafter as “our client”) and upon whose
instructions we write you this letter.



2. We have been instructed by our client to
communicate to you, and we hereby do, its concern
regarding the lack of discretion and
responsibility on the part of some Media Houses in
Ghana.

3. Our client’s concern arises from the
publication and/or permitting the publication of a
series of incendiary, hateful and offensive
statements, and speeches on their various
platforms against our client’s Justices.

4. This concern has been heightened by the flurry
of statements and speeches directed at our
client’s Justices, especially after the
commencement of hearing of the election petition
in the suit intituled John Dramani Mahama v.
Electoral Commission & Nana Addo, numbered writ no
J1/15/2021.



5. The fact that these statements and speeches
directly mention some of the Justices hearing the
petition apart, a number of your publications
directly insinuate that the decisions of the
Justices presiding over the matter are motivated
by factors outside legal principles and proper
judicial consideration.

6. The focus of the statements and speeches
therefore patently insinuate that the decisions
are motivated by matters unrelated to the rules
and principles in accordance with which justice is
delivered but are motivated by corrupt factors and
devoid of any legal justification and/or
reasoning.

7. The point above made is vindicated by a very
cursory reading of a number of the statements and
speeches published on some of your platforms on
the decisions of the Court with regards to the
election petition most of which reveal without a
shadow of doubt that there is no attempt
whatsoever to objectively analyze and discuss the
Court’s decisions.



8. Our client has instructed us to inform you and
we hereby do, that publications of the kind
published on your platform are dangerous to the
Ghanaian society and our democracy as a whole not
only because they obviously sow in the minds of
the unsuspecting members of the public, false
notions that the justice system is a sham and
should not be trusted, but actually provides a
foundation for lawlessness, as it is clearly
suggests to Ghanaians that they should no longer
have confidence in the judicial system, with the
following implications being obvious from such
statements and speeches;

i. The statements or speeches threaten our
constitutional order and democracy as an important
arm of government is being vilified and disparaged
with impunity.

ii. The statements and speeches interfere with the
due administration of justice as Justices of our
client are threatened with ominous consequences
following their decisions which do not meet the
expectations of some members of the society.



iii. The statements and speeches bring the
administration of justice into disrepute as
unsuspecting Ghanaians are being deliberately
misinformed and manipulated to believe that the
justice system is perverted and lacking in
credibility.

9. Having said that, we have been instructed by
our client to make it clear to you that whilst our
client acknowledges that a large membership of the
public are interested in the proceedings for which
reason they are constantly following same and are
permitted to express their views on the
proceedings, it is unacceptable to publish on your
platforms, speeches and statements and
publications which excite anger, hate and passion
against the Justices presiding over the election
petition whose only involvement in the matter
arises from their obligation to perform their
constitutional duty of determining the dispute
between the parties which must necessarily go one
way or the other.

10. Our client accordingly acknowledges the fact
that in the delivery of justice, persons
interested in the proceedings in one way or the
other and who do not find the decisions of the
courts favourable, are usually unhappy but hastens
to add that in a civilised society such as ours,
which is regulated by law, the expression of
dissatisfaction with decisions of the courts must
be dealt with in accordance with the same rules
which accord persons the right to access the
courts and no more.

11. It must be added immediately that the right to
free speech and discussion of judicial
proceedings, decisions of the courts and the
administration of justice is only legally
permissible provided the criticism does not
interfere with the due administration of justice
especially where as in this case it is intended to
strike fear in the Justices whose constitutional
mandate is to determine the petition and/or bring
the administration of justice into disrepute and
also threatens our constitutional democracy.

12. Our client’s concerns above stated is
justified when account is taken of the fact that
Ghana’s history has singularly and despicably
recorded the inhumane abduction and callous murder
of Justices of the Superior Courts of the Judicial
Service for which reason all and any acts and
omissions which threaten officials of our client
must be treated with the highest level of
seriousness and dealt with according to law which
undeniably forbids such threats to the person and
property of Justices of our client and also
ensuring that the dignity and respect in which our
client’s Justices duties are constitutionally
encapsulated, is not undermined.

13. We have particularly taken note of the fact
that Justices of our client have in the discharge
of their constitutional duties, affirmed, and
enforced the right to free speech and by reason
thereof, accommodated a reasonably wide latitude
in so far as criticisms of the administration of
justice is concerned the reason for which all
judicial proceedings including the election
petition, are conducted in public, thereby
providing a platform for free public debate on the
proceedings.

14. In the light of the foregoing, we have our
client’s instructions to demand, and we hereby
so do that, as most responsible media institutions
now do regarding incendiary and spiteful
publications, you immediately,

i. pull or cause to be pulled down and cleared
from your platforms, all statements and speeches
which convey and/or insinuate hateful, spiteful,
vengeful and incendiary communication against
Justices of our client especially those hearing
the election petition.

ii. prevent the publication of such statements and
speeches on your platforms, and

iii. forthwith exercise the highest level of
discernment, discretion and responsibility in so
far as publication of statements and speeches
regarding the administration of justice is
concerned.

15. Our client’s demand above communicated to
you is made against the backdrop of the law which
advises that where the population consists largely
of uneducated or not very well-informed people, it
is necessary to take a stricter view of what
criticism may be allowed of the justice system,
the reason being that although the administration
of justice must suffer the respectful though
outspoken [not inciteful, hateful or spiteful]
comments of ordinary men, it must not be adversely
interfered with and/or brought into dispute.

16. We must notify you, and we hereby do, that
should you fail to heed our client’s demand as
specified in paragraph 14 above, we have our
client’s instructions to take appropriate action
to ensure that you do not abuse the right to free
speech by deploying and/or permitting your
platform to be deployed in a manner that not only
threatens our constitutional order and democracy,
but obviously, adversely interferes with the due
administration of justice and also, brings it,
into disrepute.

17. Please be advised.

Yours Sincerely

…………………..

SORY@LAW

CC:

1. Multimedia Group Limited,

No.1 Farrar Avenue,

Adabraka

multimedia@myjoyonline.com

2. Despite media Group,

Abeka Junction,

Accra.

info@peacefmonline.com

Source - MyNewsGh.com

... go Back