<<Print>>

A private legal practitioner and astute member of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC), Lawyer Abraham Amaliba has described as unethical Supreme Court judge, Justice Jones Dotse’s comment in public on the court ruling against the NHIS Cards users in the Voter’s Register.

He explained that due to the fact that Justice Dotse was part of the panel members at the Supreme Court who presided over the case, it was unethical on his part to have discussed his own judgement in public by trying to interpret the ruling.

The SC ordered the Electoral Commission (EC) to delete the names of those who registered with National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) cards as proof of identity ahead of the 2016 elections.

This ruling was followed by varied interpretations especially after the EC said it will not delete the names because the SC’s ruling did not instruct them to do so.

In an interview on Thursday, Justice Dotse said the SC was clear in its ruling and that the EC must delete the names of NHIS holders in the voters’ register.

In reaction to the Supreme Court Judge clarification, lawyer Abraham Amaliba on Okay FM’s Ade Akye Abia Morning Show averred Justice Dotse’s comment is inviting litigation as he urged the parties to come back to court for interpretation on the Supreme Court ruling.

“It is unethical that you will discuss your own judgment in public by interpreting the judgment to the extent of inviting litigant that they can come to challenge the Supreme Court ruling. I have never heard a judge urging people to go to court....it remains that it is the first time a judge has given judgement and again in public running commentary on his own judgement”, he opined.

He further asserted that Justice Dotse’s comment means he has given his interpretation on the Supreme Court ruling; thus if the parties seek clarification of the court ruling and it coincides with his interpretation, he gives room for people to suspect a bias clarification as people will assume it was planned already.

“So it borders on the fact that this is the first time we have heard a judge running commentary on his judgement in the public as if it is a public debate. The question to ask is, was he speaking for the court because he was not alone on the case? Was he speaking as a spokesperson for the panel or he was speaking as a political commentator?, he quizzed.