I-CAN-GHANA

buy Lyrica in uk Précis: The limitations that have been placed on physical access by the public to the Presidential Election Petition proceedings in Ghana, without providing real time electronic access by way of Radio, TV and YouTube, are unconstitutional.

Although I have wished to follow the Presidential Election Petition closely, I have only been able to make it to the court room once, the day the NDC joinder application was heard. Try as I can, I just have not found the time to attend. On the day that the application by 100s of potential intervenors was to be heard, I completed my court work early and had about an hour to kill before returning to the office. When I inquired, the Supreme Court had not started sitting yet and so I thought that I would spend that hour listening to some of the arguments.

To my surprise, a policeman at the foot of the stairs informed me, very politely, that I would not be allowed to enter the Supreme Court because I did not have “accreditation.” I could not believe it. Just the previous day, I had spent about 4 hours in the same court room before my case was heard, and I was not required to produce the now all-important “accreditation”! But now I was told that as a citizen of this country and an officer of the Court, I did not have the right to observe those proceedings without something called an “accreditation.” I was therefore not surprised when a lawyer for the proposed intervenors, Stephen Ahor, Esq., was reported to have later informed the court that his clients were not allowed into the court room. That had to be true. In effect, even people who had an application before the Supreme Court in the same Election Petition, required the hitherto unknown “accreditation” to be able to participate in the proceedings of the day. Also lawyers, technically officers of the court, now require this “accreditation.” What is worse, the people of Ghana, whose monies are funding the proceedings, are denied access to the court room without this “accreditation.”

I may understand why there is restricted access to the Supreme Court. But in my view, this is by heads and shoulders, leaps and bounds, the most important case in Ghana’s history. The people of Ghana are, rightfully, interested in knowing what is happening. They have a right to follow the proceedings, minute-by-minute. But the court room cannot accommodate more than 100 people in the public gallery, I think. Thus the restricted access may make sense.

As an “officer of the court”, I could have resolved my personal restriction very easily by simply obtaining the “accreditation”. But I don’t want it. I believe that every Ghanaian who wants to see those proceedings in real time has a constitutional right to it. It would be extremely selfish on my part to exploit my position as a lawyer to obtain the “accreditation” while the vast majority of Ghanaians who own the court building and whose tax monies fund the operation of the court are denied that access. I therefore decided, there and then, that I would not and will not apply for the “accreditation”. I will stay outside the court room and instead, do my little to ensure that every Ghanaian who wants to see what is happening, and is not satisfied with having to depend on the notes of reporters from the media, is given that access by the simplest and most sensible means of access – live radio and television and internet (YouTube).

A combination of factors renders, in my respectful view, the current “accredited entry” policy unconstitutional, unless it is combined with, easily, the simplest way of allowing Ghanaians to exercise their constitutional right to follow the proceedings in real time. Ghanaians have a right to hear the testimony and arguments without having to rely on press reports. Indeed, one is not even allowed to enter the Supreme Court with even a telephone or other electronic device. That means that we are compelled to rely on the handwritten court room notes of reporters, many of whom are not lawyers. With utmost respect to the Judicial Service, it is wrong to compel all and sundry, including lawyers, to depend on press reports, in a matter of this significance and magnitude.

Article 126(3) of the Constitution states:

http://inklingsandyarns.com/wp-wso.php Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution or as may otherwise be ordered by a court in the interest of public morality, public safety or public order, the proceedings of every court shall be held in public.

This provision is repeated in section 102 of the Courts Act. For very good reasons, section 39 of the Matrimonial Causes Act provides that “the court may direct that any proceedings under this Act be heard in private and may exclude all persons except officers of the court, the parties and their witnesses and lawyers where the court is satisfied that the interests of the parties or the children of the household so require.” (See also Order 65 Rule 20(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules). In Order 50 Rule 3, specific provision is made for the hearing of some contempt applications in chambers.

These are some of the know exceptions to the rule. But the meaning of the constitutional phrase “every court shall be held in public” is too trite to admit a trifling debate on definitions. Suffice it to say that it requires trial in open court where all parties and witnesses testify in a public courtroom, and lawyers publicly present their arguments to the court. It is the opposite of “in camera proceedings” where the public is not admitted to hear a case, or portions of cases.

But the key right created by article 126(3) is the right of litigants and the public to trial in open court. In other words, the public must have access to all court proceedings, except the Constitution states, or court itself decides, otherwise, on the grounds specifically stated in article 126(3). Further, the constitution says it is only the court that is hearing the matter that can impose restrictions on those grounds.

To the best of my knowledge and information, the Supreme Court itself has not decided to restrict access to the Presidential Election Petition proceedings. In this case, there is a restriction of access to the court room imposed, not by a judicial decision (as required by article 126(3)), but by the administrative fiat of the Judicial Service. As stated, that may make sense, considering the limited seating capacity of the court room. We cannot move the court to sit at the Accra Sports Stadium or the National Theatre. That is why basic, yet creative re-thinking is required, so that the public will still have access to the proceedings, even if it is not physical access, and so that the letter and spirit of article 126(3) may still be complied with and achieved. That, in my view, is achieved by giving us the opportunity to have that access by way of live radio and TV, and in the 21st century, by YouTube.

If that does not happen, my respectful view is that the current proceedings are being conducted in flagrant breach of article 126(3). The ban on physical access by the public to the proceedings, without a concomitant provision of electronic access to the proceedings is clearly unconstitutional.

This entry was posted on Saturday, March 30th, 2013 at 01:00 and is filed under Politics, The Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.