“You’re a Canker to the Judiciary” — Martin Amidu Lashes Out at Judge in Abronye Case
Former Attorney General Martin A. B. K. Amidu has strongly criticised Circuit Court Judge Samuel Bright Acquah over his recent handling of the case involving Kwame Baffoe, also known as Abronye. Amidu has accused the judge of acting in a manner that undermines the fundamental rights enshrined in Ghana’s Constitution.
Key Allegations
-
Unfitting Judgement & Poor Legal Reasoning
Amidu denounces the judge’s ruling—from pages 8 to 10—as “disgraceful,” claiming its legal reasoning, structure, and language fall far below acceptable standards for even a law student, let alone a sitting judge. -
Violation of Constitutional Rights
Key among Amidu’s concerns is that the judge’s decision disregards several constitutional protections: the presumption of innocence, the right to bail, due process, human dignity, and equality before the law—rights clearly stated in Articles 14, 15, 17, and 19 of the 1992 Constitution. -
Use of Bail as Punishment, Political Overtones
According to Amidu, the judge used the bail process punitively—viewing it as an opportunity to “punish” rather than fairly assess whether bail should be granted. Amidu also argues that the judge introduced political considerations into legal proceedings, especially in relation to alleged insults and their effects on public order, in a manner inconsistent with judicial neutrality. -
Claim of Inadequate Training or Qualification
Amidu questions how Judge Acquah was admitted to the Bar and eventually appointed to the bench given what Amidu sees as glaring deficiencies in his legal knowledge and professional decorum.
The Specific Case: Abronye (Kwame Baffoe)
-
Abronye has been charged under counts of publication of false news, intent to cause fear or panic, and offensive conduct. He pleaded not guilty.
-
Judge Acquah refused bail, citing concern that insults and offensive conduct were becoming a threat to public order. In his view, unless political parties take steps to curb insults that spill into public discourse, the courts must intervene. Modern Ghana+1
-
Amidu argues that the ruling treated these accusations as if they were already proven offenses—not awaiting trial—and imposed remand as though bail was a privilege to be denied rather than a presumption in favour of release.
Broader Implications
Amidu warns that this case—and particularly this judgment—poses serious dangers to Ghana’s legal system. He asserts:
-
It damages public trust in the judiciary.
-
It erodes constitutional protections.
-
It sets a precedent for judges to overstep by politicizing legal proceedings.
Amidu also appeals to the current Attorney-General’s office to uphold democratic values and ensure that such rulings are not allowed to pass without scrutiny.
Source : My News Ghana
About the Author
