Let’s kill all the lawyers!

Hello there, you may be startled by the above heading, if not totally scandalised.

I can imagine your sense of outrage, wondering how the affable and kind man you know has suddenly acquired murderous intentions.

Please chill, for surely as day follows night, yours truly (who almost became a Catholic priest) has not metamorphosed into a modern day ‘Butcher of Baghdad’, spewing and preaching violence.

The phrase has come to mind in the midst of the current confusion — the rise of latter day legal luminaries, the righteous pontification of self-styled political analysts and armchair radio and TV panellists, who have been bombarding Ghanaians with their views — often skewed according to their political orientation — on the determination of the three petitions sent to the President demanding the removal of the Chief Justice for ‘stated misbehaviour’ and for incompetence.

Pandemonium

I am sure by now that most of you are sick to death of the total pandemonium visited on the country which is threatening to further exacerbate the already polarised populace.

The phrase, generally deployed to disparage the legal profession, is undoubtedly a testimony to Shakespeare’s wit.

In his Henry VI, the character Dick the Butcher, who was planning a rebellion with the ambitious Jack Cade, called for the execution of the lawyers so that there would not be any intellectuals to question their revolution.

It is ironic that this phrase, alongside Charles Dickens’ “the law is an ass”, has come into popular use for ridiculing legal practice.

Ronald Dworkin (an Oxford University legal philosopher) has posited that there is a right answer to every legal problem even when legal rule is unclear and ambiguous. 

He posited that judges and adjudicators can locate the answer by applying principles of fairness and justice from a ‘seamless web’ of legal precedent and principles.

Drama

Whilst the reference to Shakespeare and Charles Dickens is anchored and driven by humour, the ongoing drama surrounding the petitions brought to demand the removal of the Chief Justice is confusing a vast number of citizens .

This is as a result of the daily discussions on all platforms.

At the heart of the unfolding saga are the suits that have been brought to suspend the work of the committee, presently adjudicating whether the Chief Justice should be removed from office. 

Ordinarily, this should not start a third World War as everyone, the suspended Chief Justice included, has the legal right to fight his/her case.

What is creating the tension is the open discussion of the pros and cons of the removal process.

We have on several occasions in these columns spoken about the public dissection in the media of cases pending before courts. 

This is because such actions undermine the integrity and authority of the courts. It is only the Supreme Court that has the power to determine the matter.

This is how democratic societies have fashioned a way of resolving differences.

Other than that we risk undermining the very systems we have put in place to preserve the peace. 

What is happening is dangerous because the final decision of the Supreme Court in the matter will have been compromised.

The supporters of the party that loses, having been convinced of the correctness of their arguments supported by the very public discussion of the issues may not wholeheartedly accept the verdict.

It is on the strength of this that we call on the use of the threat of contempt of court to sanitise the airwaves of this dangerous phenomenon.

Certainly, it is not for nothing that Rule 38 of the Legal Professional Conduct and Etiquette Rules prohibits lawyers from making out of court statements or granting media interviews about matters which are pending in courts.
 

Rule

The rule is there to guarantee the integrity of the court system by preventing lawyers from potentially influencing the outcome of cases through public commentary.

I am not too worried about the judges being influenced, as by virtue of their training and discipline, they will not be swayed by arguments outside the courtroom.

It is the entrenched positions that people take after listening to the views of these so-called experts or reading their opinions in newspapers and blogs that scandalise me.

It is not that lawyers in Ghana, myself included, have no view on the contested issues.

We certainly do, but fidelity to the ethics of our profession prevent us from joining the ‘jamboree’ of public discussion as it eats away at the edges of judicial authority and integrity.

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