Investigative Journalist Manesseh Azure Awuni and others who were cited for contempt of court have filed their affidavit in opposition saying they
Investigative Journalist Manesseh Azure Awuni and others who were cited for contempt of court have filed their affidavit in opposition saying they would apologize unreserved if they were found guilty of the offence.
The respondents’ affidavit in opposition states that “no contempt is occasioned by publications by journalists of the factual matters of the outcomes of adjudications by judicial, quasi-judicial bodies or administration actions by lawfully mandated institutions as in the circumstances of the complained reports.”
The respondents further stated that the six articles published were not in contempt of court but they “are news reports that meet the best professional journalistic standards, ethics, constitutional and lawful limitations” and that the application is “intended to procure what is commonly known in jurisdictions including the United States of America as SLAPP (i.e. Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation)
Mr Awuni said, “ In the unlikely event that this Court takes the position that 1st Respondent and myself are in contempt of the Court, 1st Respondent and myself shall duly apologize unreservedly to the Court for our conduct as determined by the Court to be contemptuous of it (the Court) and shall, subject to its rights, purge itself of such contempt as directed by the Court.”
The Respondents contended in conclusion that “the instant motion is unmeritorious, frivolous, abuse of process and same ought to be dismissed.”
The respondents also held that they “have much respect for this Honourable Court and the due administration of justice that neither 1st Respondent, nor myself would do anything to undermine the dignity and aura of respectability in which this Court is warped or bring the administration of justice into disrepute or public ridicule.”
Manesseh and others namely Edwin Appiah, an Editor, Sulemana Briamah of Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) and the MFWA as an entity had been accused of publishing “highly prejudicial” articles against Lighthouse Chapel International.
It was the case of the applicants that, respondents had also made “commentaries” as well as “concluded issues, which are yet to be determined by the High Court.”
The Lighthouse contempt application is therefore urging the court to commit the respondents to prison for contempt of Court for the publications.
The contempt application stems from three separate suits initiated by six former pastors of the church, which, among other things, alleged the non-payment of their Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) contibutions by the church.
They are Larry Odonkor, Emmanuel Oko-Mensah, Edward Laryea, Seth Duncan, Edem Kofi Amankwah and Faith Fiakojo.
The Church, in its affidavit in support that in the three defamation suits, it forewarned the respondents that the first three publication were not only defamatory but “potentially in contempt of court.”
However despite the caution to the respondents and after being served with copies of the defamation suits, “the respondents threw all caution to the wind and went ahead and published the first, second and third publication on their Facebook walls on December 25, 2021, it added.
The affidavit in support said the article titled: “Darkness in the Lighthouse” was published 37 times between April 23, and May 1, 2021 on the respondents’ Facebook wall and twitter accounts and same generated thousands of comments and shares on Facebook and other social media handles.
The applicant held that by the defiant republication of the articles, the respondents sought to demonstrate to the High Court that there could be no limits to the way “they practice their brand of journalism.”
The applicant was of the view that the conduct of the respondents’ amounted to “serial contempt in the highest,” considering especially the repeated and defiant re-publication.
The applicant said the respondents had arrogated to themselves the power of the High Court to make conclusive findings of fact and pronouncement and as well as pass judgement on issues, which were yet to be determined by the court.
The case which was fixed for hearing on Monday January 31, was adjourned because the judge and the lawyers of the applicant did not have copies of the affidavit in opposition which they (respondents) had filed on January 28, this year.
The respondents were served with the applications on January 13 and 14, 2022 respectively.
Hearing of the contempt application is slated for Monday February 14
COMMENTS