GHANA INDEPENDENT BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION vs. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND NATIONAL MEDIA COMMISSION [2016]DLSC5619

GHANA INDEPENDENT BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION vs. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND NATIONAL... [2016]DLSC5619

Date	2016-11-30
Suit No.	WRIT NO: J1/4/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLSC5619

AKUFFO (MS) JSC PRESIDING

DOTSE JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

AKOTO- BAMFO (MRS) JSC

BENIN JSC

AKAMBA JSC

PWAMANG JSC

KWAME BOATENG WITH HIM KWAKU OWUSU -AGYEMANG FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

GRACE M. EWOAL (PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY) WITH HER VIVIAN OPOKU –

AGYAKWA (SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT.

THADDEUS SORY WITH HIM NICOLE MARIE- POKU FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT

[2016]DLSC5619
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >GHANA
INDEPENDENT BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND NATIONAL MEDIA COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

WRIT NO: J1/4/2016&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 30TH NOVEMBER, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWAME
BOATENG WITH HIM KWAKU OWUSU -AGYEMANG FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;GRACE M. EWOAL (PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY) WITH
HER VIVIAN OPOKU – AGYAKWA (SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE 1ST
DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

AKUFFO
(MS) JSC PRESIDING, DOTSE JSC, BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, AKOTO- BAMFO (MRS) JSC, BENIN
JSC, AKAMBA JSC, PWAMANG JSC<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>BENIN,
JSC:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;My Lords, this is a matter that touches the
heart of our democratic process, talking about freedom of expression in all its
facets. In democratic societies it is regarded as the most prominent
fundamental right, a lever upon which all other rights hinge. In an article by Harry
H. Wellington titled ‘On Freedom of Expression’ 88 Yale L.J. 1105, the author
suggests that free speech is preservative of other freedoms. In MURDOCK v.
PENNYSLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, 115 (1943) free speech is given what was described
as ‘preferred’ position. In other words, it is afforded more extensive immunity
from external interference than most other human endeavours. This fact was not
lost on the Committee of Experts who drafted the proposals that culminated in
the adoption of the 1992 Constitution. The Committee opened their proposals
with a quotation from the renowned John Stuart Mill, who wrote that “if all
mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in
silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in
silencing mankind.” It may be recalled that the Committee was set up against
the backdrop of what had become known in the country as the culture of silence.
Simply put, as a result of the lack of democratic political atmosphere at the
time, citizens did not venture to bare their thoughts. The Committee therefore
sought to make provisions that would allow the citizenry to express themselves
freely, subject only to such limitations as are reasonably required in the
interest and progress of society. The Committee was thus mindful of the fact
that the country should not transition from a culture of silence, which tends
to inhibit the citizenry from participation in governance to a culture of media
impunity that might bring about disorder. Thus a careful balance was required,
because a culture of impunity by the media, which has the potential to breed chaos
and insult public decency and morality, was certainly not an option. In this
regard, the establishment of the National Media Commission, 2nd
defendant herein, also referred to in this judgment as the Commission, was to
insulate the media from governmental interference and to regulate the sector in
order to achieve the dual objective of free expression and sanity in media
practice. Thus the Constitutional provisions and any other laws that have a
bearing on free expression should be interpreted with the history and purpose
of the constitutional provisions in mind. At page 85 of the report dated 31st
July 1991, the Committee captured the essence of this freedom in these words: <o:p></o:p>“It is
through responsible and independent media that objective information is
disseminated, different and opposed views are presented and shared, enlightened
public opinion is formed and political consensus mobilized and achieved.”<o:p></o:p>It
was not lost on the framers of the Constitution how important free expression
was to the development of society. It ensures democratic self-government,
informed voting and checks abuses of power. As a voter education tool, free
speech is the foundation of democratic self-government. Needless to say it
propels and promotes the development of culture, science, art, technology and
commerce. It also ensures individual self-development, association and
enjoyment of all other rights. The Constitution is thus a moribund document
without the freedom of expression which enables people to talk about
infractions thereof and to go to court to seek redress. Thus for democracy to
thrive and survive, nothing should be done to stifle this freedom except where
the person is said to have gone beyond legitimate boundaries prescribed by the
Constitution itself or any other law which is not inconsistent with the
Constitution. This piece of introduction sets the tone for our consideration of
this case before us which places in focus the extent of the mandate entrusted by
law upon the Commission. <o:p></o:p>