We Made No Attempt To Influence Judge’s Decision - Talensi Traditional Council
The Talensi Traditional Council in the Upper East Region has refuted allegations of any influence or entrapment of the Bolgatanga High Court judge, His Lordship Justice Alexander Graham in the discharge of his duties. The Talensi Traditional Council has been accused of trying to compel the judge to compromise in a case currently before him regarding a land dispute.
But the Council said it invited the Judge on March 8, for a debriefing on some worrying land litigation matters which had the tendency of causing injury and damage to lives and property in the area and were before his court on the way forward. After the meeting, the judge claimed the invite amounted to an influence and attempt to entrap him and thus charged and convicted two members of the council who delivered the invite for contempt and ordered them to sign a bond of good conduct for six months.
But in a press statement, the Talensi Traditional Council debunked the assertions by the judge. The council maintained that, it has over the period collaborated with the courts to amicably resolved land litigation issues and that the invite was just part of such collaborations with the court to resolve worrying land litigation issues in the town and not an attempt to influence justice delivery.
The council did not send the two members to go and influence His Lordship Alexander Graham in any matter whatsoever. It was simply an invitation extended to His Lordship by the President to see how best ligitation on issues concerning lands can be addressed by the council through its Customary Lands Secretariat with the help of the Judge.
The two members did not go to the court to entrap the judge nor influence his decision on cases pending before him since neither the council as a body nor the Tongraan Kulgbilsong Nanlebgtang, its President is a party to any land case pending in the high court or any other court in the region. The council stated that it recognises the independence of the judiciary in dispensing justice and would not at any time attempt to circumvent their mandate.
The council appreciates and understands the independence of the Judiciary in the discharge of its functions as establish by law. It also recognises the long standing collaboration between the Judiciary and Traditional Authorities in the resolution of disputes in the interest of peace and justice. Therefore, the council would be the last entity to circumvent that tradition and legal practice for which reason the two members of the council were charged and convicted of contempt of court.