Paramount chief to sue GBC, New Times
Chronicle Editors convicted for contempt
UST Council has set precedent in appointing VC - Counsel
Paramount chief to sue GBC, New Times
Accra (Greater Accra), 19th May 99
Nana Adjei Ampofo, Paramount Chief of Goaso Traditional Area, has said he will commence legal action against the Chief Executives of Ghana Broadcasting Corporation and New Times Corporation and Mr Frank Okyere, a journalist of New Times Corporation in Kumasi for defamation.
In a statement issued in Accra on Tuesday, he said he would commence the action in 30 days from May 17, 1999.
"The action arises from a defamatory news item, broadcast over the network of Ghana Broadcasting Corporation on or about the 27th day of April, 1999 and on subsequent days which was heard in over 120, and a publication in the Ghanaian Times of the 28th of April or thereabouts and on subsequent days.
"The said news item alleged among other things that I pounced on a woman and beat her up at Manhyia, Kumasi. It also added that soon after doing that I wept uncontrollably.
"These statements are false and were maliciously and viciously published to ridicule, humiliate and disgrace me."
GRi../
Chronicle Editors convicted for contempt
Accra (Greater Accra), 19th May 99
An Accra High Court on Tuesday convicted the Editor and Deputy Editor of the Ghanaian Chronicle for contempt and fined them one million cedis each.
Ebo Quansah, Editor and Mohammed Affum, Deputy Editor, will go to prison for seven days in default.
The General Secretary of Christ Apostolic Church (CAC), The Reverend Augustine Annor-Yeboah brought the contempt proceedings against them for publishing an article, which he claimed was prejudicial to a case involving him.
They rendered their unqualified apologies to the court and promised not to publish such a prejudicial article again.
The Court presided over by Mr Justice Richard Apaloo, in its ruling said but for the apology, it would have imposed a custodial sentence on them.
Publishers of the paper, General Portfolios Limited, were also fined two million cedis and they have seven days to pay the fine.
The court ordered the editors to publish an apology on the front page to retract the prejudicial article. In addition, they should apologise to the Judiciary, Police and the Complainants in a "form approved by the court".
Quansah and Affum will pay additional one million cedis each if they failed to publish the apologies.
Before sentence was passed, Quansah pleaded that he should be spared custodial sentence because he was looking after his ailing mother and his children, some of whom are about to enter higher institutions.
Affum pleaded that justice be tempered with mercy since he has a wife and five children some of who are of school-going age.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Apaloo upheld the relief sought by the applicants that the "conduct of the Editors constituted rude and wilful interference with the administration of justice".
He said the application for contempt was brought not so much to protect the reputation of the applicants but to vindicate the judiciary.
The court said it is on record that the Editors were aware of a pending court matter involving Rev. Annor-Yeboah yet they published extensive material on the issue.
The judge said the court had a responsibility of preventing the press from mudslinging.
In the April 14-15, 1999 edition of the Chronicle, Affum wrote an article captioned "Bribing the Police - Rev. Annor-Yeboah's style" and in which issues before a law court awaiting judgment were mentioned.
Mr Kwaku Baah was attorney for the applicants while Mr Akoto Ampaw was for the editors.
GRi /
UST Council has set precedent in appointing VC - Counsel
Kumasi (Ashanti), 19th May 99 -
Mr Yaw Attakora-Amoo, a Kumasi-based lawyer, last Monday told a Kumasi High Court that the University of Science and Technology (UST) Council has accepted the practice and convention whereby the names of candidates are submitted for consideration for the post of Vice-Chancellor in order of merit.
Mr Attakora-Amoo, Counsel for Professor Albert Owusu-Sarpong, Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the UST, was addressing the court presided over by Mr Justice Gilbert Mensah Quaye in the case in which plaintiff is seeking the court's declaration to enforce the UST Council's convention for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor.
Counsel contended that at the 143rd special meeting of the Council, it resolved that the names of two candidates, namely Professor Eugene H. Amonoo-Neizer and the late Professor Reginald T. Ansah-Asamoah, as listed in order of merit be sent to the PNDC Government for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor.
Mr Attakora-Amoo said at that meeting to consider the report of the Search Party, the Council did not quarrel with the report, adding that "the order of merit" was underlined in the minutes because it was very important.
He submitted that "the order of merit" was not merely descriptive of the candidates as contended by the UST and the UST Council, defendants in the case.
"If the phrase 'in the order of merit' was not to play any role and has no value, why did the resolution at the meeting not only show the names of Prof.
Amonoo-Neizer and Prof. Ansa-Asamoah but stated simply that the two names be listed alphabetically to the PNDC?" he asked.
Mr Attakora-Amo submitted that a precedent was set in 1992 whereby the annexe to the report by the Search Party did not go in any way to influence the Council to accept the report.
He said from evidence before the Court, there is evidence that the Council resolved to recommend the first two candidates in order of merit to the Government and that there was no evidence of voting.
Mr Attakora-Amo said submission by counsel for the defendants that there was no evidence that the Council had taken a decision not to vote was not the issue.
He said the case for the plaintiff was that, in so far as the 1998 Council had decided to follow the 1992 procedure and practice, the Council, once the Search Committee had presented its report, was bound to appoint the first candidate on merit without voting.
Counsel submitted that the attempt by the Council to vote was 'absurd, illogical and contravened its own stated principle' and was unjustified.
He said evidence before the court showed that the Council accepted the report as a working document and did not reject it either directly or by implication. It was, therefore, going to vote on the three short-listed candidates in order of merit.
Mr Attakora-Amo said it was not the contention of the plaintiff that the Council did not have the power to reject the report in its entirety.
The only basis upon which it decided to vote was its idea that the report was inadequate, he stated.
"If the report was bad, then why did they use it as the basis for further action on the three short-listed candidates?".
Counsel said the Council should have called all the six candidates if it had wanted to vote because the effect of 'the attempted voting by the Council' was to identify the most suitable candidate.
This, he noted, was contrary to the assertion by the Chairman of the UST Council, Agyewodin Adu Gyamfi Ampem, Acherensuahene, during the inauguration of the committee that voting was a thing of the past.
Mr Attakora-Amoo submitted that there was evidence to show that members of the 1998 Search Committee were given the necessary materials to guide them.
"They took cognisance of these materials and they were aware of the best procedure to get results and followed them scrupulously."
Hearing continues tomorrow, Wednesday, May 19.
GRi../