On the first day of the 2020 Election Petition Hearing, the Supreme Court presided over Chief Justice Anim Yeboah granted two preliminary motions filed by the Petitioner’s counsel on behalf of Candidate John Dramani Mahama:

One was that the Courts grants the media access to cover proceedings live on national television. The purpose is to give meaning to judicial democracy and transparency.

In granting this , the apex court explained it had already thought of granting the media access. It agrees with precedence during the 2012 Election Petition, aimed at fostering procedural transparency – Lead Counsel for the Plaintiff, the venerable Tsatsu Tsikata was not allowed to argue out this motion. He was stopped mid-way and ruling administered after.

Ordinarily, the court must to take credit for this measure but it was defeated due to some reportages that contained some political twists and commentaries. Expected though. These gave credit to the Petitioner when in actual sense per the court’s decision, the application only coincided with its wisdom.

On the same application granted, some media reported that the NDC’s application to the court to make the proceedings live on media was granted whilst others implied that the court considered the motion a moot point.

Going forward, we must be concerned about how fast the media and political parties and their counsels are always on the look out to score preliminary juridical points in a delicate case like what’s upon us.

But more significantly, I’m asking myself if the live telecast may affect the quality, comprehension and eventually the outcome of the verdict? Yes and No.

The courts over the past half-decade have come under barrage of criticisms, corruption allegations and sometimes unwarranted attacks, so administering justice in the full glare of the cameras and with the microphone in attendance will do this important arm so much good.

But we must be measured in our expectations of the court because the cameras and the microphones will not necessarily influence the application of the wisdom of the bench a certain way however controversial the direction may be . We must be guided by recent rulings concerning the post-election parliamentary protest which points to how unpredictable and illogical the law can be sometimes. I believe the outcome will largely depend on the quality of the debates from counsels and the fidelity to be shown by the bench.

Therefore, the live telecast right granted should also thrust more responsibility on counsels to elevate the legal argument and to effectively deploy evidence . This will in turn provoke quality justice.

CPD POST CREDIT: Kabu Nartey( Kabunartey.com)