Contempt(uous)

The practice whereby so-called experts, drawn from diverse areas of society but mostly professionals, sit on radio or television and latterly, on social media, to express their opinions on current issues is what is provoking my ire. 

I have, in my own small way, written on aspects of our criminal justice system and human rights with a view to engendering debate which may invariably lead to the unearthing of solutions.

Sometimes, I receive contrary views to what I ‘pontificate on’ but, by and large, the feedback has been positive and inspiring. It is with this in mind that I revisit the topic of contempt of court.

Contempt of court has many manifestations but, in the main, it refers to behaviour that obstructs the administration of justice or undermines the court's authority.

There are a lot of activities or conduct which could qualify as contempt: disobeying court orders, interfering with witnesses, ‘jury nobbling’ (the act of bribing, intimidating, or otherwise influencing jurors to reach a specific verdict, thereby compromising the fairness and integrity of the judicial process) etc.

For present purposes, this article will concentrate on an area of contempt which, in my opinion, is getting out of hand with potentially devastating effects on the administration of justice and hence, deserving of scrutiny and correction: commentary on pending cases before the courts in ways that could influence their outcomes.

Cases

The way cases before the courts are routinely discussed willy-nilly and with careless abandon in the media space leaves much to be desired.

Trial by media has become so widespread and regular that it has almost become the norm. The immediate manifestation of this serious form of contempt are the petitions to the

President, seeking the removal of the Chief Justice. Ordinarily, commenting on current affairs in the media is a laudable, indeed, a necessary and important feature of democratic societies.

Not only does it allow the proliferation and expression of diverse opinions on a particular topic but it fosters a sense of belonging and inclusiveness, thereby encouraging peace and promoting national development.

However, when the courts become seized of a matter, all manner of opinions, comments, views etc., should cease forthwith.

This allows the courts to adjudicate the matter according to legal tenets and principles, devoid of partisan or selfish views. 

This is because the principal aim of contempt is to regulate the administration of justice by upholding the authority, independence and impartiality of the law.

When the courts are allowed, without let or hindrance, to smoothly grind the wheels of justice, the integrity of the system which is sacrosanct and a ‘sine qua non’ feature of democracies is ensured.

Analyse

There are always some people who, by virtue of their situation and circumstance, cannot properly or adequately analyse issues, thereby making their comments susceptible to manipulation and subterfuge.

What makes commentary on court cases in the media — both print, broadcast and social — abominable is that if the court pronounces verdicts different from the views expressed in the media, it weakens the very foundations of the judicial system which can culminate in anarchy — a bit ‘over the top’ but I hope readers get my drift!

As we are all aware, the member of Parliament for Old Tafo in the Ashanti Region, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, has initiated an action at the Supreme Court as to the legality or otherwise of the petition to remove the Chief Justice.

That singular action should be enough to seal mouths.

But alas, at the last count, there have been a plethora of ‘pocket lawyers’ all over the place, expressing one opinion or the other on the merits or demerits, so to say, of the petition.

I am generally scandalised by these developments.

The scary thing is that it is not as if it is an isolated incident, far from it, but it is a systemic, ‘par for the course’ habit that has become part and parcel of the media space. 

The negative impact of this phenomenon cannot be overemphasised and it is about time the judiciary sat up and cracked the necessary whip to bring sanity into the system.

Contempt, for God’s sake, has well defined and prescribed punishments, including incarceration.

I will go so far as advocating the enactment of a Contempt Act to cater for all aspects of contempt. 

Establishing a statutory regime will help to sanitise the contempt landscape: the different types of contempt, 'in- facie' and 'ex-facie' will be properly delineated and prescribed punishments provided.

The writer is a lawyer.
E-mail: georgebshaw1@gmail.com