Editor-In-Chief Kweku Baako has, on Metro TV,strongly backed Gabby description of a Supreme Court ruling as showing “timidity”. He also lambasted the ruling of Judges of the Supreme Court as “devoid of commonsense”. Gabby’s description came after a five member panel upheld a suit filed by Mr. Mornah to the effect that Constitutional Instrument (CI)74 Rule 69C (5), which allowed the Court to “sit from day to day, including public holidays" in the hearing of the election petition, as a violation of the Public Holidays Act. But an unenthused Judge Nasiru Gbadegbe said in court last Monday that “certain articles that were on the websites describing the Judges as timid et cetera is not healthy for the development of the law. It is not proper”. This concern by the Judge did not sit well with Mr. Baako. “Sounding like [his] Kumi Preko days”, Mr. Baako said that the Supreme Court overacted to the article by the Executive Director of the Danquah Institute. Gabby was right, he suggested and said the decision of the Supreme Court was “patently wrong”. He wondered why the judge would be worried and sensitive to a critique such as Gabby had described. “It wasn’t scandalous? Timidity? And there are worried?” he queried. He said appeals and reviews are a form of criticism. “The President or Parliament has no business prescribing the procedure for the Judiciary, it’s the rules of court committee under 1572 [of the Constitution]”, he said. He explained the Public Holiday’s Act was silent on the judiciary for a reason because of the recognizable fact that “they cannot intrude into that jurisdiction”. “Their decision is senseless. Yes”, a vexed Kweku Baako fired on Metro TV's Good Morning Ghana, Thursday. “We need to have the spirit to speak our minds in a vigourous manner without insulting..short of scandalization… and the supreme court should have the stomach for these things”, he charged. “I am ready to subject them to merciless critique…we didn’t fight for free speech in order to curtail it at this time. He said he may take up a review of the decision at the Appeals Court.