In a desperate move, to once again catch the attention of the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) 2012 flagbearer, Mr. Williams Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo and his Akyem mafia after abandoning them to their destiny, the Editor-in-Chief of the New Crusading Guide, Abdul Malik Kwaku Baako, has taken a serious swipe at the Supreme Court judges hearing the 2012 election petition.

Even though, Mr. Kwaku Baako on record is a school drop-out, and completely bankrupt in quantitative analysis, the New Crusading Guide’s Editor-in-Chief wants the world to believe that he is in a better position to interpret the law than those who have spent years studying the law - and helping in its interpretation, as far as the judicial process is concerned.

In a case that appears to be in the domain of persons with intellectual capacity, like the nine (9) Supreme Court judges have exhibited, regarding their ruling in the Bernard Mornah’s case, Malik Baako, with stinking academic baggage, has decided to question the intelligence of those who have all that it takes to help him out of his academic quagmire.

Instead of him, to seek legal counseling on the matter, Kwaku Baako, decided to insult the intelligence of Justice Atuguba and his colleagues, for ruling in favour of Mr. Bernard Mornah, describing as senseless, patently wrong, and a clear show of timidity, for throwing out the call for them to sit on public holidays.

Forgetting his past, Malik Baako, in his desperations to get into the good books of Nana Akufo-Addo and his Akyem bloc, thoughtlessly, decided to follow Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko, into the arroyo via his rather weird criticism of the Supreme Court judges.

Below, is published unedited, Malik Baako’s unfriendly description of Justice William Atuguba and his colleagues; culled from radioxyzonline.com for your comment.

Political pundit Kweku Baako Jr. has described as “senseless”, “patently wrong”, and a clear show of “timidity”, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Bernard Mornah case, in which the same Court has curtailed and proscribed itself from sitting on public holidays, to hear election petitions.

An obviously riled Kweku Baako Jr., who described as an “over reaction”, the Supreme Court’s response to an article written by the Executive Director of the Danquah Institute, Mr. Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko, in which he criticised the Bench’s ruling on the case, said he found the ruling to be at variance with common sense as averred by Mr. Asare Otchere-Darko in the article.

Speaking on Metro TV’s Good Morning Ghana Programme on Thursday May 9, 2013, the New Crusading Guide Editor-in-Chief thundered that: “If it doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t make sense”.

“If I say your ruling is devoid of common sense, what’s wrong with that?” He fumed, exclaiming: “Come on! They should be able to take it”.

He, however, clarified that: “I haven’t said the Supreme Court Judges are senseless”.

Mr. Baako answered in the affirmative, when the host of the Programme, Mr. Randy Abbey, sought clarification from him as to whether he meant the ruling was “senseless”.

The Court on Tuesday April 30, 2013 ruled that certain aspects of Constitutional Instrument (C.I.) 74 used to regulate the December 7 & 8, 2012 general elections were unconstitutional.

A seven-member panel chaired by Justice Julius Ansah unanimously held that sitting on holidays as well as weekends by the court as prescribed by C.I. 74 was inconsistent with the law and, therefore, unconstitutional.

The court further held that the decisions arising out of disputes under C.I. 74 can also be reviewed and thus went ahead to nullify Rule 71(b) of C.I. 74 which provides that the decision of the Supreme Court in respect of a petition presented to challenge the election of a President cannot be reviewed.

The case was filed by Bernard Mornah, General Secretary of the People's National Convention (PNC) in which he sought the annulment of C.I. 74.

The other Justices on the seven-member panel included Sophia O. Adinyira, Rose C. Owusu, Anin-Yeboah, Sule N. Gbadegbe, Vida Akoto-Bamfo and A.A. Benin.

After the court's ruling, the Executive Director of Think Tank Danquah Institute, Mr. Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko forwarded an article to various media houses for publication.

It was titled: "The Supreme Court showed its timidity in the Mornah Case".

The use of the word “timidity” in the headline hit a raw nerve of the Bench compelling one of the nine-member panel of Justices hearing the election petition case, Justice Sule N. Gbadegbe to condemn the tag hung on them by the article.

Before proceedings on the petition started on Monday May 6, 2013, Justice Gbadegbe, who was also one of the seven-member panel that ruled on the Mornah case said: "To describe Judges as timid is not healthy for the administration of Justice".

He explained that: "When we delivered the Mornah case, perhaps we were wrong, but that was our decision but certain articles that were on the websites describing the Judges as timid et cetera is not healthy for the development of the law", adding that: "It is not proper".

However, Kweku Baako Jnr. said: “I think the Supreme Court over reacted to Gabby’s piece. What timidity!” He blurted.

“That’s not a scandalous critique of the highest court of the land…I’m with Gabby on one aspect of his article; the part about the public holidays Act; I think the Supreme Court ruling was patently wrong….appeals and reviews are forms of criticism. They are not above criticism”, he asserted.

He explained that: “When people appeal or seek review, they are actually telling you, the Court; whether High Court, Court of Appeal or Supreme Court that there’s something wrong with your ruling. It’s a form of criticism”.

He pointed out that: “If I tell you that your decision on the public holiday side violates article 157 (2) [of the 1992 Constitution], I’m right”, he charged, adding that: “I think somebody should go for a review; maybe I might”.

Mr. Baako went on further that: “…The President or Parliament has no business prescribing the procedure for the judiciary, it’s rules of Court Committee under 157 (2) so if the Chief Justice decides that you can sit on every day, why do you think the public holidays Act itself is silent on the judiciary in terms of bodies; because they knew, they recognised the fact that they cannot intrude into that jurisdiction so there’s something wrong and I have the right to criticise that aspect of the ruling and to say it is timid, I am entitled to that and no supreme Court will take that away from me”.

He said: “We need to have the spirit to speak our minds in a vigorous manner without insulting…they should have the stomach, the belly to take these things”, but noted that such criticism, no matter how acerbic it is, should be done “short of scandalisation and criminalization of the Supreme Court or the Justices sitting there”, adding that: “we must give them that respect”.

He mentioned that: “We didn’t fight to expand the frontiers of free speech in order to be curtailed at this level. I am saying that I would ensure I don’t insult, scandalise or criminalise a Supreme Court Judge. That will be wrong; that will be highly irresponsible, but I am ready to subject them to merciless critique at any one time because that is our right”.