Tyrannical Judiciary Targets Free Speech Again, Hunts Dominic Ayine

The Akufo Addo administration and the Judiciary continue to brutally suppress free speech and fundamental human rights of citizens as the latest gag order targets former Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Dominic Ayine for expressing his opinion about the controversial judgment of the election petition of the 2020 Presidential election.

The attempt to witch-hunt Dr. Ayine has been described by legal brains in the country as “unprecedented, bizarre, and ill-advised”

Dr. Ayine is a member of former President Mahama’s legal team which had filed the petition against the dubious declaration of President Akufo Addo as President by Electoral Commissioner Jean Adukwei Mensa. 

During a recent Judicial review dialogue series on presidential election petitions and their impact on Africa’s Democracy, organised by the Ghana Centre for Democratic Development (CDD Ghana) in collaboration with the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) Law Faculty, Dr. Ayine questioned the judiciary’s independence about how the Supreme Court arbitrated the 2020 election petition.

Dr. Ayine maintained that the posture of the Supreme Court throughout the petition suggests that it had a “pre-determined agenda” to rule against the petitioner, John Dramani Mahama.

Dr. Ayine was reinforcing his long-held misgivings which he had during a press briefing, February 16, 2021, when the Supreme Court was still hearing the election petition.

He was immediately found guilty of contempt of the Supreme Court but was discharged after apologizing for his comments.

However, after the case had closed and judgment was given, Dr. Ayine had expressed his disagreement with the manner the petition was handled, but the Judicial Secretary, Ms. Cynthia Pamela Akotoaa Addo has lunged at him and has reported Dr. Ayine to General Legal Council for punishment.

In the May 25, 2021 petition from the Judicial Secretary, she claims Dr. Ayine’s repeated expression of disagreement with the Supreme Court ruling had displeased the Chief Justice, Anin-Yeboah and thus he [Ayine] must be gagged and investigated.

 “His Lordship the Chief Justice, therefore, finds this alleged disparaging comments totally unacceptable and would like you to investigate this matter further,” the petition read.

However, this exhibition of judicial tyranny has infuriated some legal experts in the country. The Executive Director of CDD-Ghana, Professor Henry Kwasi Prempeh has warned that the hurling of Dr. Dominic Ayine before the disciplinary committee of the General Legal Council, over comments he made during an open dialogue, threatens the right to freedom of speech of every lawyer in the country.

According to him, the action will “impact negatively on both academic freedom and the freedom and ability of civil society to promote judicial accountability, including through projects like the Judicial Review series.”

 “So, now members of the Ghana Bar cannot offer a personal unflattering opinion of the judiciary on an academic, a civil society, or other public discussion platforms, even after a case has been decided, without risking being hauled before the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council?”

He stated that even though Dr. Ayine had made those comments, they were overwhelmingly disagreed with and shot down by other legal minds there, who had even praised the Court’s handling of the Petition.

“In other words, the platform on which the lawyer spoke was a veritable marketplace of ideas and opinion, with panelists debating each other in frank, open dialogue. It cannot be okay for a lawyer to praise a court but an act bordering on professional misconduct for another lawyer to express a contrary view of the court,” he said.

Prof. Kwasi Prempeh described the lodging of the complaint as “unprecedented, bizarre, and ill-advised” and could potentially curtail the freedom of speech right of lawyers to engage in projects like the Judicial Review Series to promote judicial accountability.

Another renowned lawyer and Ghanaian law professor based in the US, Professor Kwaku Asare, questioned the rationale for the Chief Justice’s aversion for criticism.

“It does not matter whether we agree or disagree with the criticism. The important thing is that people are free to criticise and those who disagree with the criticism are also free to offer their opinions,” Professor Asare advised.