Acting Dean and Senior lecture at the GIMPA Law School Lawyer Kofi Abotsi has affirmed that ‘the cost of defending one’s right in this country is expensive’ compared to what pertains in the US and Europe. This he says is not only in financial terms but time as well. Thus, there are situations where parties to the case might not even live to see the end of the matter not to mention enough money to hire the services of a lawyer. Lawyer Abotsi was stamping the need to balance the right to freedom of speech with the obligation of protecting the reputation of individuals and institutions such as the Supreme Court which has set the tone lately on the need to check the right to freedom of speech, largely championed by the Ghanaian media. The Supreme Court recently jailed two persons for criminal contempt over their publications and comments on the ongoing landmark Election Petition case. Appreciating the issue better on last Sunday’s Tarzan’s Take on Multi-TV's Joy News Channel, Lawyer Abotsi explained that much as there is the need to expand the frontiers of these rights, “we must also understand that our peculiarities in this country dictate certain understandings”. In other words if publications that have the potential of affecting the judicial process such as what happened lately, are not checked, the tendency for certain judges to be perceived as coming from one political affiliation or the other could be injurious to the “very safety and security of these judges” as far as the election petition case is concerned. He dissuaded the current practice where we “have people making statements that are war mongering…that suggest bias, not coming before the court directly” and compounded by media houses who back these statements and use their platforms to publish them. He fears that if these things are not discouraged, a certain sense of impunity is created against the court which is unhealthy for the existing “political climate” in the country. Lawyer Abotsi stated that if the Supreme Court does not stamp its authority as demonstrated in the cases of contempt brought before it lately and even more, "it creates an impression of impotence in the mind of the public which is more dangerous and risky". In plain terms he said "you dilute the authority of the court if you do that". Addressing the argument on what authority and power the Executive has in protecting itself, Lawyer Abotsi emphasized that the Executive arm of government has the "full armoury and state power to protect itself" against all elements that may attempt to bring it into disrepute. He however suggested that in the event of future cases that the court sees as being in contempt of it, it should refer such cases to a another court (say from the supreme court to a high court or from a high court to a lower court) for trail. This he says would help "re-emphasis its neutrality, objectivity and fairness” in the eyes of the public. Mr. Abotsi attributes this suggestion to the fundamental legal rule which states that “you can’t be your own judge in your own court”. He reminded that the “administration of justice and the authority of the court is what makes the court ‘the court’ and it is the “least dangerous among the three organs of the executive to do evil”. Explaining the court can only state what the law says and at its best, defend it but “cannot do evil” as against the other two organs who have the ‘sword’.