A perplexed Prof. Henry Kwasi Prempeh, the Executive Director of the CDD, has questioned the motivation behind the Judicial Service's new move to seem to want to control how the media reports opinions of the public about its work.

He said that it is untenable that for the Service, which works in the interest of the public, they will issue such a 'threat', attempting to gag commentaries or opinions that are made about their work when they should rather be encouraged by it to do their work better.

Speaking on Newsfile on the JoyNews channel on Saturday, February 27, 2021, Prof. Henry Kwasi Prempeh said that as much as there should be a distinct respect for the judiciary, they should also not be hostile to the interests or criticisms that come to it from the public, or, from the media.

Earlier last week, the Judicial Service, through its lawyers, wrote to GhanaWeb and other media houses, serving it a 5-day notice to pull down all stories they describe as "inciteful publications".

It will later be found out, from lawyer and host of Newsfile on JoyNews, Samson Anyenini, that apart from GhanaWeb - the only specific media house mentioned in the said letter, which was given a 5-day notice, the communication that all others received was for a 14-day period.

But since then, many individuals and institutions have condemned the service for the act and questioned why they would even imagine issuing such a statement when the concerns they have are not in contempt of the court's processes.

Prof. Henry Kwasi Prempeh, adding his voice to the tall list, has asked the courts to rather be happy that their work is being closely monitored and that should produce the best out of them, and not for them to feel threatened.

"There are opportunities in the judicial system to correct errors, correct mistakes, correct perceived injustice. Those are normally limited to the litigants or to the particular persons involved in the case, so that's fine but what I'm saying is that the public as a whole, also has an interest because the confidence in the court doesn't depend on just one case - many people are not privy to what's going on in the court on a case by case basis. It's actually shaped by a whole number of things.

"And I think the public; the nation, as the client that the Judicial Service is serving, is also entitled to form opinions about the administration of justice in the country. And those opinions may be academic writings, they may be in several kinds of media, and what I'm saying is that those should be taken on board too, as useful feedback.

"And so for instance, if I was a judge sitting on this case, what I would say immediately is that there is intense public interest in this case. I haven't personally had the opportunity to watch any of the live proceedings of this but I know how intensely people are following this. If I were a judge, the message I get is that my work is under close scrutiny by everybody; there's interest, so, for example, in writing my report, I will make sure to cross my 't' and dot my 'i', make sure that the legal research and justification are sound. That's how public interest in what the court do, help improve the quality of justice.

"So, for me, this idea that somehow, one or the other opinion, unfavourable to the court, somehow, which of course is always counted by many others favourable to the court, that we single out the unfavourable response and say that is going to damage the credibility of the court so we ham with this sledgehammer and say, not only should you be cautioned to not write those things but you go and basically take down everything, what kind of threat is that? What is this? I mean, really, seriously speaking, what is supposed to be achieved by that? Which is why I'm saying that if we're not careful how we use scandalizing the court itself, would be actually what scandalizes the court and it's a very slippery slope," he said.