A US-based Ghanaian constitutional scholar has questioned the investigative apparatus of the Supreme Court following the acquittal of Kweku Boahen, one of the three members of the “hunted trio” summoned before the apex court of Ghana on Tuesday.

Professor Stephen Kweku Asare wants answers as to what kind of background work the court did before summoning Mr Boahen before them since he claims the court does not have the clout to conduct any such investigations.

“…they (Supreme Court) brought Kweku Boahen before them because of something he had allegedly said. It then turns out that Kweku Boahen did not even voice out those remarks on the said day and time…. This calls into question the whole investigatory apparatus”.

The US-based Ghanaian law lecturer, who was clearly not enthused about the above scenario, openly wondered: “So who is there investigating someone and what is the motive of the person reporting these people to the Supreme Court?

“Or has the Supreme Court stopped the adjudication of cases and has now assumed the role of the police; snooping on these cases?” he asked.

Professor Asare was speaking to the issue of the sentencing of the Editor-in-Chief of the Searchlight Newspaper, Ken Kuranchie and Steven Atubiga, a member of the communication team of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), to 10 and 3 days imprisonment, respectively.

A third person, Mr Kwaku Boahen, the Ashanti Regional Youth Organiser of the NDC, breathed an air of freedom when he was discharged after it became clear his comments were made before the "final warning" given by the Supreme Court.

The three were alleged to have acted in contravention of the Supreme Court’s June, 24, 2013 order, which directed all persons to desist from making prejudicial comments and distortion of facts in the ongoing presidential election petition.

They were on June 27, 2013 ordered to appear before the court, barely 24 hours after the court had barred the Deputy Communications Director of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Mr Sammy Awuku, from attending the hearing of the case until the final determination of the matter for making inappropriate comments in connection with the court’s June 24 order.

The court claimed the 10 day sentence was imposed on the newspaper editor because he had not shown remorse for attacking its sanctity while it took into consideration the unconditional apology rendered by Atubiga, and accordingly, handed him the three-day jail term.

The court held that Kuranchie’s statement had brought the administration of justice into disrepute because it was no doubt made “to defy the authority of the court”.

Speaking from his base in the US, the Professor of law averred that Tuesday’s decision by the court can somewhat be construed to mean, as though; it (Supreme Court) does not want to be criticized.

“…nobody can say that we should all shut up because the Supreme Court has delivered its final warning…. If that is the case, then we should bring back the soldiers by reverting to military rule,” he opined.