I was shocked when I first heard the allegation. That was January 10, 2021. I couldn’t believe my ears because it was something I least expected to hear of a Supreme Court Judge. Though it was difficult to believe, one couldn’t help but take the allegation seriously because it was coming from a Member of Parliament (MP). Yes, Hon. Mohammed Muntaka’s allegation that a Supreme Court Judge had tried to influence one female MP from the Umbrella stock to vote for a particular candidate in the Speakership contest is what I refer to.
I watched the video over and over again but Muntaka’s demeanor told me nothing. I wanted to believe the allegation, but his association with the eagle-headed Umbrella made it difficult for me to believe his story. The Umbrella’s distrust and hatred for the judiciary is an open secret, so such an allegation coming from their camp is difficult to believe.
I was thus excited when the Judicial Service took notice of the allegation and said it would contact Hon. Muntaka to provide evidence to prove the damning allegation against the unnamed Supreme Court Judge. I was even more excited when the accuser accepted the challenge and promised to provide evidence to prove his allegation.
It therefore came as a very big shock to me when I saw an apology letter last Saturday purported to be written by Hon. Muntaka. Why the apology? Is he apologising because it was a fabricated story? Or is it because he doesn’t have any evidence to support his wild allegation?
Retracting and apologising for the indiscretion are very good steps to take. But I don’t think they are enough.
As Hon. Muntaka himself admitted in his statement, not mentioning a specific name might have had the effect of scandalising the entire Judiciary. So it is Hon. Muntaka’s duty to provide more information to clear the tainted name of our respected Supreme Court.
Report from the grapevine tells me there was indeed a call made to the said female MP. But it was a case of false identity as checks from the Telecommunications Operator by the Minority side had proven it was someone who tried to impersonate a Supreme Court Judge. So the question is: Why did Hon. Muntaka deliberately fail to add this important piece of information in his half-hearted apology letter?
Abusuapanin, the apology is not enough ‘to make sleeping dogs lie’ because Hon. Muntaka had long awaken the dogs from their sleep. He needs to tell the world what the dogs are now barking at and stop the cowardly talk about letting sleeping dogs lie.
His claim that ‘defaming the entire Judiciary’ was the allegation’s ‘unintended consequence’ is a big lie. He knew that making the allegation was like throwing a bucketful of dirty water on the white linen worn by the Supreme Court Judges. It was a deliberate action by a leading member of the House of Honourables to court disaffection for our Supreme Court Justices.
So a mere apology, which many consider as dispassionate, cannot be allowed to wipe away such a grievous sin by a senior member of the Legislature.
In the last paragraph, Hon. Muntaka said it was his ‘fervent prayer that the existing historic cordial relations between the Legislature and the Judiciary will not be affected by this incident’. I doubt if the prayer is genuine. If it were, he would think twice before bursting out to tarnish the image of the Supreme Court.
Frankly, it is acts like the one mentioned above that make one wonder if our representatives in the Legislature are deserving of the title ‘Honourable’. Yet when we say it, they threaten us with an invitation to the Privileges Committee.
I remember vividly the reaction of our Honourable Members when Blakk Rasta said many of them were ‘ganja smokers’. Though he apologised for the indiscretion on radio, they still found it necessary to drag him to the Privileges Committee to humiliate him.
Yes, Hon. Muntaka’s apology might somewhat purge him of contempt of the country’s highest court. But I still believe dragging him to court and showing him ‘his real size’ will be the best action to take. It will teach him and his ilk that being members of the House of Honourables does not give them the licence to vomit bunkum and make unsubstantiated allegations against our revered Supreme Court Justices. Hon. Muntaka must be used as a scapegoat!
See you next week for another interesting konkonsa, Deo volente!