The history of press muzzling and for that matter freedom of expression has been turned upside down by Nana Ato Dadzie. His recent remark on the subject was underpinned by factual distortions.
The quality of the remark is really incommensurate with his reputation as a lawyer supposedly of repute: his duration at the bar seemingly of no relevance at all.
Those who heard his remark on the Supreme Court action on the Montie verbal poison wondered whether he was the one they were listening to.
Indeed, the attribution was right as Nana Ato Dadzie claimed that the court’s action does not inure to the enhancement of freedom of expression. Perhaps those who coined the ‘freedom of expression’ mantra should have done alternatively ‘freedom of responsible expression devoid of hatred.’
The Montie judgment has churned out a litany of reactions enmeshed in absurdities, with the Nana Ato Dadzie being the latest.
It is rivaled closely by the signing of the petition to the President for the release of the trio by learned persons who should know better than give a nod to the undermining of the judiciary.
His demeanour and rhetoric were enough to push us to think that he too might be lacing his boots to go and sign the ‘free the Montie trio’ and subtly undermine our judiciary.
Under the regime of which he was a prominent and active component, freedom of expression was highly restricted: the Criminal Libel Law serving as an impetus.
The heaving of a sigh of relief was visibly on the countenance of most Ghanaians at the time when the order changed, courtesy Nana Akufo, the then Attorney-General and Justice Minister who acted to nullify the criminality therein. How time flies!
The history of the media journey in Ghana would not be complete without reference to this landmark development. For a learned man like him to be associated with such an outrageous remark, is to state the least, most unfortunate and despicable.
It is paradoxical that the Montie trio, having admitted that they erred in their utterances on air, aspects of which bordered on criminality, would still have persons like Nana Ato Dadzie and others who ordinarily would not be associated with such gaffes engage in illogicalities in their favour.
We are appalled that the Supreme Court’s magnanimity in applying the minimum sentence for the convicted persons has not been acceptable to the mischief makers and those who seek to politicize everything under the sun.
In any case, it is an indisputable fact that had the Attorney General not decided to ignore the criminality of threatening to kill in the remarks of the now imprisoned trio, the sentence could have been much longer.
Decency entails many things, one of which is about the avoidance of turning facts of history and logic upside down tendentiously.
We compromise the integrity of the judiciary by presenting it in bad light at the peril of our democracy. Must we descend so low?