The due process of law must be upheld and respected in Kennedy Agyapong’s contempt case

At the point when the Kwabena Amaning prevalently known as Tagor case turned into a matter of public concern, Justice Appau JA as he at that point was utilized the situation as a chance to toss more lights on our criminal statute which is moored on DUE PROCESS of LAW.

In his view, the way that a specific case excites public importance doesn’t legitimize the execution of our criminal law by applying various standards outsider to our criminal law practice in building up the blame of an individual.

In one of my articles subtitled ‘the forces of the court to submit for scorn must be controlled by law” which was distributed by, I managed how the different types of hatred could be dealt with. What we can be sure of is that the power(s) given to any skilled court of purview to submit for scorn is intrinsic.

What it implies is that inalienable force is one which isn’t presented by rule. The force is at last given to the court to ensure itself against any assault that has the penchant to bring the organization of equity into offensiveness. See [ Republic v Liberty Press Ltd] [ Republic v Mensah Bonsu]

As I showed before, hatred of court could be polite or criminal relying upon the realities of the issue. I have followed procedures of Hon. Kennedy Ohene Agyarpong’s supposed derisive remarks which is presently before Amos Wuntah Wuni J.

The title of the suit stays unaltered then, on record, what is under the steady gaze of the adjudicator is treated as a criminal issue.

Before I move directly to the substance of the issue, let me utilize this chance to compliment legal counselors of Hon. Kennedy Agyapong for the sort of immaculate portrayal they are doing for his benefit.

It is the absolute best portrayal any customer standing a scorn preliminary could get all together not to be exposed to any preliminary that looks to deny the individual’s essential Human Right as supported by the incomparable rule that everyone must follow.

In any case, the gather which had the seal of the Chief Justice welcomed Kennedy Agyapong to “show cause”.

Actually, a gather to show cause is one that powers the said individual to clarify or legitimize why the corrective catch of disdain ought not be squeezed against the person in question. That strategy with the best of regard can not be material concerning matters of criminal hatred.

At the last dismissed date, legal advisors of Kennedy Agyapong caused the court to notice the standards of the revelation as expressed in article 19 of the 1992 constitution of the Republic of Ghana which was insisted by the high court in Republic v Baffoe Bonnie and Others.

What pushed attorneys of Kennedy Ohene Agyapong to cause the court to notice the above issue was taking into account the way that the video recording the court is right now depending on was not made accessible to the guard legal counselors.

What is so miserable is that, on the grounds that the appointed authority is a similar individual going about as an investigator in this issue just as an adjudicator, attorneys of Kennedy Agaypong needed to intensely dissent on the should be outfitted with a charge sheet for procedures to proceed.

Interestingly, the charge sheet which was given to the safeguard attorneys was not marked. One prerequisite of a charge sheet is that it must contain the name and mark of the individual who is practicing the said prosecutorial power.

The sort of charge sheet which was given over to the safeguard legal counselors was without a name and a mark. It is educational to note anyway that, nonattendance of any of the prerequisite ruin the charge sheet. See [ DPP v Phillips and Cakebread [2018] VSC 447;[ R v Parker [1977] VR 22).]

In the event that attorneys of Mr Agaypong had not demanded these essential thing necessities in criminal preliminaries, the adjudicator was ever prepared to continue in break of Article 19 of the 1992 constitution of the Republic of Ghana moored on the strong standards of reasonable preliminary supported by the Magna Carta.

The marking of the Magna Carta by King John denoted another chronicled improvement of the privilege to a reasonable preliminary and the Rule of law in General.

Article 19 of the constitution of Ghana is a selection of the Magna Carta marked in 1215.

Likewise with Human Rights, reasonable preliminary, as a rule, was created and classified during the illumination time of the eighteenth and nineteenth hundreds of years.

The privilege to a reasonable preliminary as a Fundamental Human Right has been ensured In the African Charter On Human and Peoples Right(1981) which Ghana is a gathering to.

A charge sheet is an establishment of each criminal preliminary. It contains specifics or subtleties of offense which is regularly perused to the charged individual in a language he sees even before an examiner starts his obligation required by area 11 and 13 of the Evidence Decree,1975(NCRD 323.). A deficient charge sheet delivers a whole preliminary worthless.

A part of the preliminary which inconveniences me is the specific sort of proof the court is trying to use in this issue. As indicated by the appointed authority, the court downloaded what was on youtube direct in resistance of segment 6 of the Electronic Transaction Act,2008(Act 772).

Youtube we as a whole realize has a gigantic disclaimer with respect to things that skim on their foundation and same is the motivation behind why the court by the authority of the law should have made a conventional application to Youtube on the said snippet of data. The court, accordingly, can not suo moto download same and use it as proof when the court can not fulfill itself with the respectability of what it is trying to depend on.

The method for any criminal preliminary is equivalent to a preliminary on issues of criminal hatred. Any preliminary which tries to dodge the DUE PROCESS of law would unquestionably fill in as terrible priority and same must be the motivation behind why such preliminaries which is a finished refusal of people groups central Human Rights must be reprimanded.

It is contrary to the standards of Natural Justice for the court to go about as an investigator and an adjudicator simultaneously as we are seeing in Kennedy Agyapong’s case. He has indicated his preparation to confront the preliminary each dependable Human Being wishes to be exposed to.

The way that the intensity of hatred is practiced practically subjective doesn’t in any way shape or form imply that the force must be actuated without DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button