An Accra High Court has fined Manasseh Azure and three others a total of GHS9,600 for contempt of court resulting from six publications the court considered to be prejudicial to a case filed before it by the Lighthouse Chapel International.
The four including Edwin Appiah, Sulemana Braimah and Media Foundation for West Africa, according to the court presided over by Justice Harriet Akweley Quaye, are to pay the fine or risk spending one month each in prison.
The court also ordered them to apologize to the Church which is the applicant in the case, using the same spaces they used in publishing the articles which resulted in the contempt of court proceedings.
Justice Akweley Quaye, in her ruling on the contempt application had held that Manasseh and co being media practitioners, play a vital role in the development of the country but are enjoined to be fair and accurate particularly in reporting on issues that are before a court for determination.
Contempt Application
Lighthouse Chapel International (LCI) in January 2022, had dragged Manasseh as well as Edwin Appiah, Sulemana Braimah and Media Foundation for West Africa to court for contempt over publications which the Church described as highly prejudicial articles and commentaries” as well as made “conclusive statements of facts on unresolved issues which are yet to be determined by the High Court.”
The motion which was filed by Kweku Paintsil of Goshen Chambers on behalf of the church is urging the High Court to commit the respondents to prison for contempt of court for the publications.
LCI’s application for contempt of court against Manasseh and the other defendants resulted from separate suits initiated by six former pastors of the church over Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) contributions and other allegations.
The contempt application stated that “whiles the said articles purport to be a reproduction of the contents of the writs and statements of claim in the said six suits against the Applicant, the publications were and are indeed highly sedated with the Respondents’ biased commentary and factual allegations not borne out of the pleadings, but the Respondents’ own invention of facts alleged to be sourced from the said Plaintiffs.”
The affidavit in support of the motion further stated that “by such conduct, the Respondents have arrogated to themselves the power of the High Court to make conclusive findings of fact and pronouncements and have themselves passed judgments on issues which are yet to be determined by the Court, effectively conducting a media trial in favour of the said plaintiffs against the Applicant herein.”
Opposition
But the respondents in their affidavit in opposition to the application stated, among other things, that they have respect for the court and will apologize to the court if they were found to be in contempt.
The affidavit which was deposed to by Edwin Appiah denied the averments of the Church that the six publications complained of were in contempt of court and insisted that they are news articles that meet the best journalistic standards and ethics.
It stated that the publications individually or taken together were in responsible exercise of constitutional rights and freedoms including the right of the public to know and that of the media including its independence as provided for and guaranteed in chapters 5 and 12 of the Constitution 1992 respectively.
“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”, it avers.
The affidavit in opposition further stated that the six publications complained of “are news reports that meet the best professional journalistic standards, ethics, constitutional and lawful limitations employing where appropriate, words like “alleged” to predicate information. Respondents received first hand in interviews with said pastors, and documentary evidences received for said news reports, and said usage was not to cast doubt but satisfy said standards and ethics.”
The respondents indicated that they have respect for the court and “would not 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.”
They, however, stated that they were willing to apologize to the court and purge themselves if the court finds them to be in contempt of court.
“In the unlikely event that this Court takes the position that 1st Respondent (Manasseh) and myself are in contempt of the Court, 1st Respondent and myself shall duly apologise 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.”
They contended in conclusion that the motion was unmeritorious, frivolous, abuse of process and same ought to be dismissed.
The court after the determination of the application held that the actions of the respondents were in contempt of court as the articles complained of were prejudicial to the case before it.
The court, therefore, fined Manasseh Azure, Edwin Appiah, Sulemana Braimah and MFWA GHS2,400 each and in default they spend one each in prison.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak