Montie Trio Saga; Mahama’s Pardon Unlawful

The decision by President Mahama to release the Montie Three contemnors from their sentence is the most misguided decision by any president in recent history.

It was made without lawful authority, against the constitution of Ghana, and signifies the most abject interference of a judicial process.

In spite of the prevalence of proper counsel, the president listening to baseless legal arguments and improperly informed sources has taken the unlawful step contrary to:

Article 125 ( 3,4,5) and Article 127 ( 1,2 )
The decision by the Supreme Court to commit the Montie Three was done in accordance with the law. It was right and as explained by Justice Sohia Akuffo JSC and other Justices who were present, it was in response and in accordance with the administration of justice. [We note the presence of familiar judicial personalities in the persons of Justices Anin Yeboah JSC, J. Ansah JSC who are meticulous in their work, together with Justices A. Benin JSC and G. Pwamang JSC].

The abject disregard or lack of understanding is what empowered some of the multitudes who signed a petition to the president, who has affirmed his support and unlawfully pardoned personalities who have claimed and admitted in court that they intend to kill and harm the Chief Justice and other Justices of the Supreme Court of Ghana.

It is the first time in the history of the nation or possibly any where in the world that a president of a democratic nation has endorsed the declaration to harm and or assassination of judicial personalities. It is a shameful decision taken without lawful authority and in contravention of the constitution of Ghana.

The decision by the president to pardon the Montie Three was unlawful and without due authority.

We will look at the decision of Justice Sophia Akuffo and her colleagues and explain it in the simplest terms such that even a child will understand. Obviously this basics in law has eluded some professors and advocates of law and justice and this failure has contributed to the break down of law and order, and exposed the eminent Justices to unnecessary peril.

A person convicted of contempt of court is identified with the name contemnor. Perpetrators of other crimes are identified as convicts or felons. Contempt of Court prosecution is a remedy which is given to the Judiciary to protect the integrity of the courts and to ensure that anyone who goes to court will receive a fair hearing and justice will be disbursed fairly.

It relates only to the administration of justice and is the exclusive preserve of the Judiciary and not subject to any effect by anyone outside the Judiciary. It is separate from the constitutional process for bringing a case to court and the decisions of which the president may exercise his prerogative of pardon.

The constitution is clear about this judicial provision and states that it must not be interfered with by anyone, particularly ‘The President’ and the Council of State.

127.
(1) In the exercise of the judicial power of Ghana, the Judiciary, in both its judicial and administrative functions, including financial administration, is subject only to this Constitution and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority.

(2) Neither the President nor Parliament nor any person acting under the authority of the President or Parliament nor any other person whatsoever shall interfere with Judges or judicial officers or other persons exercising judicial power, in the exercise of their judicial functions; and all organs and agencies of the State shall accord to the courts such assistance as the courts may reasonably require to protect the independence, dignity and effectiveness of the courts, subject to this Constitution.

A lot has been said about the powers of the president to exercise his prerogative for pardon, but the constitution is very clear - for the purpose of administering justice, no one including the President, the Council of State or anyone is allowed to interfere.

Mahama can be deemed a contemnor for interfering in the administration of justice without due authority or he can attract a charge of perverting the course of justice. That is a crime and can raise the spectre of impeachment.

Lady Justice Sophia Akuffo was clear in her statement and stated thus [paraphrasing]:

“Even though there is clear evidence and an admission of crime, in the absence of any action to prosecute by parties and agencies outside this court, the court can only deal with the affront caused to its authority and personalities of this court and treat the actions thereof only as contempt.”

It was a clear statement in respect of constitutional boundaries, stating that the power to initiate a criminal prosecution was not the responsibility of the court and it was clear to see their frustration on the inaction of the agencies of state and the Attorney General whose responsibility it is.

Two people of a degenerate sort, go on an allied broadcast program and made proclamations of threats to harm and assassinate The Chief Justice and other judges. They give the name and address of their accomplice assassin and the Attorney General and law enforcement agencies do not move a muscle.

Eminent legal personalities like Mr. Sam Okudzeto counselled against sending the wrong signal by siding with the contemnors. With these voices of reason Mahama should have listened. Instead he chose to listen to the loud mouth personalities who tout themselves with accolades but cannot make out the basic differences on the jurisdictional applications of law.

This singular action to pardon the Montie Three from their contempt charge is an executive over-reach. The president has no authority under the law and interfered in the administration of justice contrary to the express statement of the Constitution of Ghana.

It is difficult to fathom what the response of the Supreme Court will be. However the Justices of the Supreme under the Chief Justice Georgina Wood will abide in wise counsel and are unlikely to exert any escalating response at this time, particularly with parties who appear have scant regard for the laws of the land.

There must be no doubt however that these judicial personalities take a very dim view of subversive act of the law and will act at the correct time to ensure that this is clear.

All this has come about because the person tasked with running the election to enable the nation to rid itself of the lawlessness and the rot, is conducting herself in a manner which indicate that she is an integral part of the problem and unlikely to be useful in the drive to excise the possibility of corruption which will save the people of being robbed of a golden opportunity at the next election.

She has already made her contribution to the corrupt effort by making payment with the people’s money for a stolen logo. Her failure to comply with the remit of her task is the cause of the lawless proclamation to harm and kill The chief Justice and other Justices of the Supreme Court; an act which has now been endorsed unlawfully by the president.

Making threats to kill or harm is a crime, to do so to subvert justice is also a crime and to interfere with the administration of justice without due authority is a criminal act and that is what the president has done.

Jedd Rii