The lawyer for the two Montie FM panellists accused of threatening to kill Supreme Court judges says his client did not admit to issuing the threat as claimed by the Bureau of National Investigation (BNI).
Chris Ackumey explained Godwin Ako Gunn was not on the programme as the BNI claimed in its statement issued on Thursday over the matter.
“Ako Gunn was not on the programme on that day that is why when I look at the third paragraph of the BNI letter which stated that there was an alleged admission I was taken aback,” he said.
Alistair Tairo Nelson and Godwin Ako Gunn made the news for allegedly issuing a threat to kill Supreme Court judges over the just ended court case regarding the electoral roll on an Accra-based radio station, Montie FM.
They claimed if the Supreme Court judges failed to do what they want they will eliminate them one after the other, saying, they know where some of them stay.
The BNI claimed the two turned themselves in to aid it with investigations into the matter.
The Supreme Court has also summoned them to appear before it on Tuesday, July 12.
A document released by the BNI on Thursday said the two admitted issuing out the threat to the judges; Mr Ackumey said the claim is false.
According to him, per the evidence he has gathered from his clients points to the fact that Ako Gunn was not present on the show.
“What the BNI is saying in its letter is authoritative,” he said, noting, it contradicts the information he has.
Law lecturer at the University of Ghana Law School, Dr. Poku Adusie, says the BNI has arrogated to itself powers it does not have by wading into the matter.
According to him, prosecutorial decisions are supposed to be made by the Attorney-General and not BNI.
“Secondly, the matter involving the utterances of the two persons in my view bother on alleged crime under the Criminal Offenses Act and for that reason the investigation should have been conducted by the Ghana Police Service,” he said.
He also noted the position not to prosecute the two by the BNI flies in the face of clear provisions “Of our law that it is not your viewpoint of the remoteness of the person’s ability to carry out the threat that is used to judge.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has set the 12th of July to consider whether or not to imprison the accused person for contempt of court.