Apostle Samuel Anang Sowah, Bishop Abraham Adjetey Adjei and Bishop Daniel Buernor Tokoli, formerly of the Holy Apostolic Reformed Church (HARC), were sent to prison for defying orders of the court not to interfere with the activities of the church.

Apart from slapping the three contemnors with a term of imprisonment, the court presided over by Justice William Boampong, also awarded a cost of GH¢1,000 each against the three pastors in favour of the church, which was the applicant in the contempt case.

On October 27 last year, the court, in an earlier contempt case, convicted the three pastors for contempt of court for holding service at the Tema, Teshie and Nungua branches of the church despite a pending application for interlocutory injunction, restraining them from conducting church services.

The court, however, cautioned and discharged the three pastors, who had been dismissed by the leadership of the church. In its current ruling sentencing the three pastors to prison, the court held that despite the contempt conviction on October 27, 2023, and the caution, the three pastors went ahead and did the very thing the court cautioned them not to do by holding service at the three branches of the church.

The pastors, the court held, defied the court orders and went ahead to conduct church services at the branches on October 29, 2023, two days after they were convicted for contempt.

Respect the law

Delivering the sentence, Justice Boampong held that by defying the orders of the court, the three pastors had breached an order of the court which had not been suspended, thus bringing into disrepute the administration of justice.

“The court earlier cautioned and discharged the respondents in an earlier contempt case, but they went ahead and repeated what the court restrained them to do.

The Respondents should therefore be made to respect the law at this time. I sentence each of the three respondents to five days imprisonment,” Justice Boampong ordered.

Suit

The Trustees of the HARC sued the three pastors, accusing them of illegally breaching the constitution of the church by acting independently and failing to accept the leadership of the church.

Among other reliefs, the plaintiffs wanted the court to declare that the three branches which the three pastors had taken over were subject to the control of the headquarters of the HARC.

The church further wanted an order from the court restraining the three pastors from having anything to do with the church so long as they refused to obey the direction of the headquarters of the church.

Apostle Samuel Anang Sowah, Bishop Abraham Adjetey Adjei and Bishop Daniel Buernor Tokoli, were initially found guilty of contempt of court by a High Court in Accra but were cautioned and discharged.

However, they were found to be guilty of further contempt of court after going ahead to enter the premises of the church knowing very well that there is an ongoing case against them and a motion for interlocutory injunction against them is still pending.

According to the Registered Trustees of the church, who are the applicants, the defendants, in spite of their previous conviction and the pendency of the motion for injunction, went ahead to do the very things the said motion for contempt sought to prevent them from doing – by going to the chapels in Nungua and Tema on October 29, 2023.

They, therefore, prayed the court to further attach the bishops for further contempt for defying the orders of the court.

The bishops, in their defence, admitted the ruling of the court which convicted them for contempt, but averred that after the court convicted them and imposed a sentence of a caution and discharge, no consequential order was made.

They further stated that, they being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the said ruling, filed an appeal against it and applied for a suspension of the orders as contained in that ruling and same was granted.

The bishops, through their counsel, also argued that logically once the interlocutory injunction order had been suspended, whatever it earlier prevented them to do fell flat, adding that there was currently no order of the court pending against them which they defied.

But the court presided over by Justice William Boampong, in his ruling, held that since the bishops were prohibited from continuing to use the chapels of the plaintiff to conduct Sunday Services, they need not to rely on any consequential orders of the court to enable them to comply with that order, hence their defence in that direction failed.

He also found that a critical look at the order suspending a ruling of the court which the bishops relied on in their defence, indicate that the ruling relates to a different suit and not this very suit.

“The very ruling in this present case however had not been appealed against and no suspension of the order in this Suit No. GJ/1054/2022 had been obtained. In this very suit, also the respondents had not denied that they had not done what the earlier ruling in this suit prohibited them from doing,” the court held.

Justice Boampong, therefore, found Apostle Samuel Anang Sowah, Bishop Abraham Adjetey Adjei and Bishop Daniel Buernor Tokoli to be in further contempt of court, and convicted them for same.

He said the three were earlier cautioned and discharged in the earlier contempt case, but they went and repeated what the court restrained them to do, hence they should be made to respect the law.

The court, therefore, sentenced them to five days in prison and awarded a cost of GH¢1,000 against each of them.

Source: Dailyguide

ALSO READ:

• Frank Annor Dompreh convicted for contempt, fined GH¢7,200

• IGP leaked tape: Supt. Asare, Supt. Gyebi caught lying, committee cites them for contempt

The Court presided over by Justice Abena Oppong Adjin-Doku convicted him after he pleaded guilty previously to the offence.

The Court said Mr Annor-Dompreh is not an ordinary member in society and should know better.

In view of this, the Court spared him a custodial sentence.

Justice Adjin-Doku while sentencing him on Tuesday, July 23 imposed a fine of 600 penalty units on him which is equivalent to GH¢7, 200.

The MP was cited for contempt after it was brought to the attention of the High Court (Land Court 1) that he disrupted Court Bailiff and Police Officers work when they were to carry out an execution work over disputed lands.

ALSO READ:

Class 4 pupil found dead in bush [Video]

I’m yet to recover from shock of Speaker’s extreme action

NDC will likely take credit for credit scoring system – Miracles

The power of contempt allows judges to summarily punish persons who disobey orders of the court or disrupts legal proceedings in a court.

The power has been used in Ghana to punish journalists and other commentators who use language some judges do not like and has been criticised by some lawyers and media professionals.

When asked by Madina MP, Francis-Xavier Sosu, at the Appointments Committee’s hearing whether there should be a law to regulate this power, Justice Anthony Kwofie, currently Justice of the Court of Appeal, explained that commentators and media professionals must rather be circumspect of their language.

He argued that it is the only tool available to judges to defend themselves when they are being targeted for abuse in the media, thus curtailing that power would be unfair to the judges.

“Honourable Chair, I don’t think there should be a law as you have now in UK for example on contempt. But in all honesty how many contempt cases come before the court across the country in a year? Very few. And where people make so much noise is the contempt involving the media.

“Seems to me that’s where the problem really is. People say this judge, this media house or this journalist is being – but judges are attacked, people are hounded and they use all manner of strange language and the courts have no, if you like, we don’t carry guns.

“The only power a judge has that is used is not something that is used, I mean, every day. Once in – I don’t even remember for the number of years I have sat as a judge to have convicted somebody of contempt, and I know a lot of my colleagues have the same attitude.

“But you see, sometimes people should be able to also control their emotions, their language and recognize that judges are also human beings. You attack, you hound, you insult, it’s our way of making sure that such a person is brought to justice to know that at least even though we don’t carry a gun, that is the only way we can [defend ourselves]. I don’t think that there should be a law,” he said.

After his vetting, the committee will interact with the two other nominees, Yaw Darko Asare and Richard Adjei-Frimpong, who also serve on the Court of Appeal.

The Appointments Committee is chaired by the First Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Joseph Osei Owusu.

He is expected to superintend the process and submit a report to the plenary for consideration.

ALSO READ:

• KT Hammond reacts to court’s ruling on Gyakye Quayson’s contempt case

• Judges who comment on cases in court should be held for contempt – CJ

Researcher Dr Amanda Odoi contends that the Speaker has treated court processes with disdain and contempt.

“The respondent has continually violated and shown utter disregard for the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana and the court process.

“That the respondent’s clear, intentional and continuous disregard of the court process necessitates the Respondent being sanctioned for contempt in the public interest and to protect the dignity of the Court,” the Court documents state.

Dr Odoi is one of two citizens who have sued the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General over the anti-LGBTQ+ bill.

She contends her checks show that the Speaker has been served with all relevant court processes including one asking the court to place an injunction on Parliament’s consideration of the law.

She said despite this, the Speaker caused the Bill to proceed to its Second Reading in Parliament.

“That by his conduct in directing or causing Parliament to proceed to a Second Reading of the Bill, in full knowledge of the pending suit and related interlocutory injunction application, the Respondent has disregarded and disrespected the authority of this Court.

“That such disregard interferes with the outcome of the pending litigation, brings the administration of justice into disrepute and undermines public confidence in the judicial system.”

She, therefore, believes an imposition of sanctions will preserve the court’s dignity.

ALSO READ:

• Geologist reveals cause of rockfalls on Aburi Mountain
• Meet Akufo-Addo’s former wife who passed on 30 years ago
• Famous Ghanaian artiste loses wife [Photos]

According to the Supreme Court, Justice Wuni exhibited bias due to the use of the phrase ‘severely punished’ in a contempt summons to Mr Agyapong, who is the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Member of Parliament for Assin Central.

It is the view of the court that by using the words “severely punished”, Justice Wuni indicated how he intended to punish the MP even before the trial commenced.

“It demonstrates prejudice, bias and in fact amounts to grave judicial indiscretion for a judge to form an opinion on the severity or leniency of punishment to impose on a person who is presumed innocent until proven guilty,” the court held.

This was contained in a 31-page judgement detailing the reasons why a five-member panel of the apex court prohibited Justice Wuni from presiding over the MP’s contempt trial.

The unanimous decision was written by Justice Yonny Kulendi.

Other members of the panel were Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, who presided, Justices Yaw Appau, Gabriel Pwamang and Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu.

RELATED STORIES:

• Kennedy Agyapong deserves Justice – Public reacts to SC ruling

• Contempt: Kennedy Agyapong ‘fights’ judge with fresh demand

Prohibition

On October 14, this year, the apex court prohibited Justice Wuni from presiding over the contempt trial after it upheld some aspects of a judicial review application filed by the legislator.

Lawyers for the MP wanted the Supreme Court to quash the whole case against their client including the summons for him to appear before the High Court.

However, the apex court held that the summons issued by Justice Wuni for the MP to appear and answer for his action, as well as the charges levelled against the MP for allegedly scandalising the court, will stand.

It, however, quashed all the proceedings held before Justice Wuni and ordered the case to be placed before another judge.

This means that the trial will now start afresh before a new judge.

Summons

On September 2, this year, Mr Agyapong allegedly insulted a Justice of the High Court.

Mr Agyapong’s alleged comments were made in connection with a land matter.

On September 9, Justice Wuni issued a summons for the MP to appear before the High Court and answer for his alleged contemptuous comments.

“I hereby summon the said Kennedy Ohene Agyapong per a warrant issued under my hand and seal to appear before the High Court (Land Court 12) on Monday, September 14, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. to show cause why he should not be severely punished for contempt, if the matters are proven against him to the satisfaction of the court,’ the summons said.

‘Severely punished’

It was the view of the Supreme Court that Justice Wuni’s use of the phrase ‘severely punished’ made him (Justice Wuni) susceptible to bias.

“Where a judge, even before taking the plea of an accused, expressly states that if the charge preferred against the accused (the applicant herein) is proven against him, he shall be “punished severely’, the inference that the judge is clearly biased is irresistible.

Also, the court held that the records of proceedings at the trial showed that they were ‘confrontational’ which left room for speculation that Justice Wuni would not be impartial in the trial.

“These considerations coupled with the trial judges express language regarding the gravity of punishment he contemplates against the applicant (Kennedy Agyapong), smacks of prejudice and bias,” the court added.

Mr Agyapong, who was supposed to appear before the Court Monday morning, failed to show up.

His lawyers, however, submitted a medical excuse duty from the Holy Trinity Medical Centre/Spa.

Lead Counsel for Mr Agyapong, Kwame Gyan, told the Court that after the previous sitting on Friday, Mr Ayapong suffered from complications from a post COVID-19 condition that he suffered last month.

He said they immediately arranged for him to seek medical support and diagnosis from the doctor who treated him for COVID-19.

The Lead Counsel said they had attached the report to a cover letter to the court for submission, arguing that it was not out of disrespect that he (Agyapong) was not able to appear before the Court.

“The Court records would reflect that, since the service of the order via substitution, the applicant has consistently been in court and on time. This is our prayer and we beseech you to allow us an adjournment to get him in good health,” the lawyers said.

The court, presided over by Justice Amos Wuntah Wuni, accepted the excuse duty and the request for an adjournment.

It said the request for adjournment had been granted, “however, it is hereby ordered that the medical officer, Dr Ken Addo of Holy Trinity Medical Centre/Spa and Health Farm, appears before this court, on Thursday, October 1, to speak to the medical excuse duty.

“We have to create a good country for ourselves. The way medical excuses are given these days, somebody must speak to the issues. Having written such an excuse duty, he must come to court.”

At the previous sitting, Mr Agyapong pleaded not guilty to the charge of contempt, where the video, which lasted close to four minutes, was played.

He was supposed to reappear before the Court to present his defence and subsequently for the Court to give its ruling.

• Kennedy Agyapong suffering from Covid-19 complications – Lawyers tell court

• Kennedy Agyapong hits back; wants Supreme Court to stop contempt charge against him

• Contempt: Kennedy Agyapong fails to show up in court, gives reason

Mr Agyapong is alleged to have made a statement deemed contemptuous in a land case.

A letter, signed by the lawyer for the MP, Emmanuel Bright Atokoh ESq, urged the court to adjourn the case to October 27.

But the judge rejected the plea and adjourned the case to October 8, 2020.

The MP is being accused of carrying himself as the New Patriotic Party parliamentary candidate with branded cars, billboards and posters as an elected candidate, despite a court order.

“That among others, the Respondent has, contemptuously, mounted billboards/posters advertising himself as parliamentary candidate,” the suit read in part, adding that the MP recently superintended an inauguration ceremony for a purported campaign team on August 24, 2020.

SEE ALSO

• Ejisu police arrest 11 suspected criminals in swoop

• Western Togoland attack: Minister unmasks all involved

Mr Agyapong, who allegedly scandalised the court by describing a High Court judge with unprintable words, pleaded not guilty to contempt after he was charged for scandalising the court and bringing its name into disrepute.

With his hands behind his back, and wearing a white top with black trousers and glasses to match, the MP said “not guilty.”

Lawyer’s arguments

The MP took the stand to give his plea after numerous attempts by his legal team for the case to be adjourned, reports Emmanuel Ebo Hawkson, Graphic Online’s court reporter.

Lead counsel for Mr Agyapong, Kwame Gyan, urged the court to halt the case on numerous occasions by giving many reasons to buttress his arguments.

First, he argued that his client had petitioned the Chief Justice over an alleged case of bias on the part of the presiding judge, Justice Amos Wuntah Wuni, and has also filed a judicial review application at the Supreme Court challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case.

Counsel further argued that his client had further filed an application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of the case at the Supreme Court

He, therefore, argued that it would be in the interest of justice for the case to be halted for all the three issues he argued to be resolved first.

Case should continue

Justice Wuni, however, ruled on all the submissions made by counsel and held that nothing prevented the court from proceeding with the matter.

On the issue of the stay of proceedings, he held that the filing of a stay of proceedings did not automatically mean a case should be halted.

This, he said, had been the position of the law as held by the Supreme Court.

With regard to the judicial review application, Justice Wuni held that unless the Supreme Court orders him that he had no jurisdiction, he was not bound by any law to halt the case.

On the issue of the petition to the Chief Justice, he ruled that he had already made his reply to the Chief Justice and therefore unless there is a directive from the Chief Justice, nothing stopped him from going ahead.

“Honourable Kennedy Ohene Agyapong step forward and answer the charge against you,” he held, Graphic Online’s Ebo Hawkson reported.

More attempts

All other attempts by Mr Gyan to have the case adjourned proved futile as the presiding judge insisted that no law prevented him from continuing with proceedings.

Mr Agyapong then took the stand and pleaded not guilty .

The video, which also showed the alleged contemptuous comments made by the MP, was also played in court.

Hearing continues on Monday, September 28, 2020 for the MP to present his defence and subsequently for the court to give its ruling.

The MPs who hail from the Central Region did not tell Osei Kyei Mensah-Bonsu of their decision to recuse themselves in the contempt hearing against MP for Assin Central, Kenndey Agyapong.

Cynthia Morrison, MP for Agona West; Naana Eyiah, MP for Gomoa Central and Samuel Nsowa-Djan, Upper Denkyira West recused themselves because they have a close relationship with the contemnor.

ALSO READ: PHOTOS: Anas look alike “poisoned” in Germany

Mr Agyapong has been dragged before the Privileges Committee for describing the Legislature as useless.

The Minority caucus described the attitude as one which is unbecoming of the controversial MP, saying his comment in the media repeatedly brings the name of Parliament into disrepute.

Chief Whip, Muntaka Mubarak, has served notice that the Minority has evidence that Mr Agyapong called Parliament “useless” and he will push for him to be dragged before the Committee.

But the three MPs said since respondent is the Caucus Chairman for the Central Region, they were in a difficult situation to investigate him hence their decision to step down.

ALSO READ: Pius, Kwadwo Baah reinstated by Akufo-Addo

Speaking on the Floor on Monday, Mr Mensah Bonsu said although it is within the MPs’ right to recuse they ought “to have discussed the matter with the leadership of the caucus that they belong to, but that was not done.”

“The Committee ordinarily should have taken a decision on whether to accept their late request or not but they positioned themselves as if it is a fait accompli [they had no option], and that was a bit unfortunate,” he added.

ALSO READ: Fred Agbenyo lied over NPP Congress boycott – Asiedu Nketia

According to him, the three have been invited by the leadership of the NPP in parliament and they have explained their reasons for their action.

He said the leadership accordingly after an extensive consultation nominated temporary members – MP for Adentan, Yaw Buaben Asamoa, Jaman South MP, Yaw Afful and Ablekuma North MP, Akua Owusu Afriyie – to replace them.

“This is to enable the Committee to have the muscle to go full throttle in conducting the business given them,” he said.

He clarified that the three temporary members are only sitting on the case at hand after which they will be taken off.

WATCH PHOTO: Bullet replies critics saying Wendy Shay has only one wig

Commenting on the issue, the Minority Leader, Haruna Iddrissu, said the move by the MPs undermines the work of the Committee.

“The Privileges Committee has become the disciplinary committee of the House, therefore, we should take its business more than we do,” he said.

According to the Tamale Central MP, his colleagues must be serious with what they are required do as members of the Committee as they would if outsiders are found in contempt of Parliament.

“There should be equality before the law as a principle of natural justice means that the Standing Orders and our rules and laws of the land should be no respecter of person,” he said.

The Lawyer speaking on Adom FM’s Morning Show, ‘Dwaso Nsem’ Thursday said the allegation of the NPP Northern Regional Chair that the Upper East Regional Minister, Rockson Bukari and Gender Minister, Otiko Afisa Djaba are ‘deeply involved’ in the murder of the late Upper East Regional  Chairman of the party amount to contempt.

According to him, Bugri Naabu per his utterance, is commenting on a criminal trial which is already pending before a court of competent jurisdiction.

“Criminal matters have no ending, there can always be new evidences, that is why there is an appeals court…‘deeply involved’ doesn’t mean anything in law…but he can be cited for contempt for commenting on an ongoing trial before a competent court of judicature…,” he said.

Mr Naabu during a media brawl with Ms Otiko Djaba after the Chairman violently disrupted a meeting between the Minister and women’s group in the Northern Region because he was not informed of the gathering alleged that the Gender Minister and the Upper East Regional Minister were deeply involved in the murder of late Mahama Adams.

Ms Djaba in response accused Mr Naabu of taking cows and goats as bribe to offer people jobs.

Mr Naabu has since apologized and retracted his allegation against the Upper East Regional chairman. He has also offered same apology to the NPP.

But the Lawyer argues that although the phrase ‘deeply involved’ is not enough evidence to indicate the involvement of the two, commenting on the case pending before court is contempt in itself.

Contempt, he said, can also arise from some comments that are arising from various radio and public discussions on the matter.

He further cautioned the media to be careful about the kind of comments they pass on the issue as it may amount to contempt.

“Even the discussions on radio forms part of contempt…are people intimating that Gregory Afoko is a wrong person being tried and that the judge does not know what he is doing….?,” he quizzed.

Lawyer Augustine Obour also called on the media to read more on the ruling of contempt cases as there are always new rulings on the subject matter of contempt.

The three are among four people being held in contempt of court for destroying properties on a tract of land situated near the Santasi Roundabout in Kumasi, which is a subject of litigation at the Kumasi High Court.

While the lands officer and Buffalo Unit Commander were fined GH?1,500 each, the Ashanti Regional Commander of the Ghana Police Service was fined GH?3,000 for willful showing disrespect to judicial process through their lack of personal representations in court on a number of occasions.

However, the fourth respondent, Akwasi Addai Odike, the failed presidential aspirant of the United Progressive Party (UPP), was not fined after it emerged that no notice was served on him to appear in court.

Odike’s legal representative told the court that apart from the fact that the court failed to give the respondent any proper notice for him to appear, he was also out of the jurisdiction and therefore could not appear in person.

The case was adjourned to May 30, 2017 for the matter of application for contempt to be dealt with in order to pave way for the determination of the substantive case.

Counsel for the applicants, Nana Obiri Boahen of Enso Nyame Ye Chambers, is praying the court to commit the respondents to prison for purposefully undermining the administration of justice in suit No:11/2015 titled: Obaapanin Adwoa Adowaa Vs. the Lands Commission and others.

According to the applicants, the respondents, who were in an unholy alliance, on the dawn of January 12, 2017 mobilized armed police officers and invaded the land during which they destroyed properties on the land lying between Southern Bypass road at Patasi, the Santasi Roundabout and the Odeneho Kwadaso Road.

They averred that the respondents, who were fully aware of the case pending before the court, acted maliciously to undermine the efficacy, integrity and potency of the judiciary.