"The nine Supreme Court (SC) Justices who granted that highly debatable EP (Election Petition) verdict, which have allowed President John Dramani Mahama (JDM), the NDC and its supporters to retain the verdict of the 2012 elections, now find themselves at odds with the sense of justice of many Ghanaians. Headed by SC Justice William Atuguba, the same nine Justices are going to walk with difficulty by a track record of voting in favor of JDM for a very long time. The perceived rush to pronounce judgment after a long wait is an indicative that creates doubt in many minds. By the action of the court many commentators are said to be conjecturing that all may not have been agreeably amongst the Justices. Some discussants are of the opinion that the verdict to uphold John Dramani Mahama as validly elected is highly disputable if all the infractions presented are said to be of no significant importance by some Justices. Most claims that from all indication the Supreme Court by this judgment seeks to undermine the Constitution, after the granting of its judgment. The impression one gathers is that, it seems to have led many Ghanaians to suspect a collusion to allow John Dramani Mahama and the NDC to escape from the case hounding them when one surf the internet. All over social media, tri-media polls and discussions — public opinion against the ‘JDM 9′ of the SC has been overwhelming. Many were convinced that the dissenting votes and legal opinions of Justices Julius Ansah, Rose Constance Owusu and Anin Yeboah provided the right and just decision and that the ‘JDM 9′ should not have pronounced the judgment in favor of John Mahama without a recourse to re-run after hearing arguments from the Petitioners. If a Constitutional Crisis happens because of this row, it should not be blamed on an administration that is only following its mandate to hold on to the declared verdict of the EC. It is also just and appropriate for the “petitioners” to bring to the bar of justice those who were responsible for the climate of impunity that characterized the 2012 elections regime (Electoral Commission). Some commentators are of the view that rather, it should be blamed on those who promulgate decisions that shock a people’s sense of justice. The concept of a Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the law thrives when the High Court is largely perceived as fair, prudent, impartial and just in their decisions. They are on dangerous ground when public opinion sees them as otherwise. A colleague had the right words for it when he said that many people would accept poverty but not injustice. vibeghana/2013/08/30/for-instance-when-a-supreme-court-judgment-is-at-odds-with-the-peoples-sense-of-justice/
Posted on: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 00:04:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015