Counsel for the two Montie FM panelists 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 his client 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.

After the court had ordered the deletion of 56,000 illegal names on the electoral roll, Alistair Tairo Nelson and Godwin Ako Gunn on an Accra-based radio station Montie FM, allegedly threatened to kill Supreme Court judges .

Their threats sparked a reaction on social media and growing condemnation of their alleged provocative commentary.

The BNI later claimed the two turned themselves in to aid with investigations into the alleged threat.

A document released by the BNI on Thursday said the two admitted issuing the threat to the judges, but Mr Ackumey has described the claim as fabricated.

Per the evidence he gathered from his clients, he said nothing points to the fact that Ako Gunn was present on the show.

“What the BNI is saying in its letter sounds authoritative,” he said, noting, it contradicts the information he has gathered.

Law lecturer at the University of Ghana Law School, Dr. Poku Adusei, has questioned the involvement of the BNI in the matter.

He claimed the BNI has arrogated to itself powers it does not have. According to him, prosecutorial decisions are supposed to be made by the Attorney-General and not BNI.

“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 12^th of July to consider whether or not to imprison the accused person for contempt of court