The Executive Secretary of the Ghana Integrity Initiative Vitus Azeem says the nine Supreme Court judges erred when they refused to hear the case brought by Sumaila Bielbiel against the MP for Bawku Central because of Dr Raymond Atuguba's involvement in the case. Following the Judges and Magistrates Association’s referral of four lawyers including counsel for the plaintiff, Dr Raymond Atuguba, to the General Legal Council to substantiate their allegations of corruption against judges, the judges at the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, pending the determination of the investigations into the assertions by the four legal practitioners that judicial corruption in Ghana was no longer a perception but a reality. Dr. Raymond Atuguba was appearing in court as the counsel for Sumaila Bielbiel, a Bawku-based cattle dealer who is contesting the citizenship of Bawku Central MP, Adamu Dramani Sekande, at the time he contested the elections, but the judges adjourned the case sine die. Mr Azeem, speaking to Bernard Nasara Sayibu on Joy FM’s Super Morning Show Friday, said the conduct of the judges amounted to an abuse of power in a very capricious manner. He argued there was no justifiable reason for the plaintiff to be denied justice – to which he is, as a citizen of the land, entitled – on the basis of comments made by his lawyer. “What happened yesterday sends shivers down the spines of ordinary Ghanaians,” he said explaining that since the assertions of the four lawyers had been referred to the General Legal Council, “why don’t the magistrates and judges wait for the decision of this council before going ahead to be a judge in their own court”? “You are penalising the clients because of what their lawyers have done [but] the clients have no authority over what their lawyers say in public...so I think what the judge did yesterday was a bit unfortunate...,” Mr Azeem noted. But a private legal practitioner, Mr Yonny Kulendi vehemently disagreed. Defending the position of the judges in the matter involving Dr Raymond Atuguba, he said the decision not to hear the case was jurisprudentially correct. Mr Kulendi said those questioning the propriety of the judges decision must remember that it is a judicial duty that “once a judge finds himself in a position where it may not appear that he can deal with a party or a lawyer fairly, the judge has a duty to recuse himself (from the case).” He recounted an incident where he, as counsel, got into a heated argument with a judge and realising the argument had gotten out of hand, “I asked for an adjournment and told the judge I needed that adjournment to advise myself. I then took the adjournment to ask my client, ‘Charlie the way this temperature is raising, I don’t want to become a burden on your case. Do you want to find another lawyer or you want me to continue’”? It is routine for judges to do what happened in the case involving Dr Atuguba, he maintained. “How will the public perceive people whose association has lodged a complaint and demanded an inquiry to be presiding over matters involving the subject matter of their complaint?” he asked. To further drive home his point, Mr Kulendi asked show host, “Bernard, if I say that journalists who call me to speak on radio take bribes. Will you call me to speak on Joy FM again?” Mr Kulendi who is counsel for Adamu Dramani, rubbished suggestions that his position on the matter is born of the fact that he benefits from the adjournment of the case sine die. “That will be most unfortunate, ridiculous and laughable. What is the benefit I get”? He asked. In any case if the plaintiff is intent on moving his case forward, he can engage the services of another lawyer, Mr Kulendi said, emphasising “it doesn’t foreclose his right at all” but if on the other hand, Mr Sumaila Bielbiel chooses to stick with his lawyer, “he has to deal with the consequences of Raymond’s conduct.” Story by Malik Abass Daabu/Myjoyonline.com/Ghana