Hiplife musician, Nhyiraba Kojo, still remains behind bars at the Sekondi Prisons, five days after being sentenced to 30 days imprisonment for contempt of court.
The popular musician was found guilty of failing to observe an interlocutory injunction order by the court to stop the noise at his nightclub, NK City, and install soundproof facilities.
Despite already carrying out the demands of the court, Nhyiraba Kojo’s counsel, Philip Fiifi Buckman, states that his client is facing difficulties in purging himself due to bureaucracy from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Environmental Health Office of Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis.
Buckman claims that Nhyiraba Kojo had already installed soundproof facilities at his nightclub before being sentenced to imprisonment. However, he could not submit a report of completion to the court within the stipulated time due to bureaucratic procedures from the state institutions. The lawyer contends that his client’s imprisonment is unjust since he has already carried out the court’s demands but is facing technicalities from state institutions.
The petitioners, Edmund Sampana Dienorng, Nicholas Imbeah, and Samuel Kofi Dzukey, filed the case against Nhyiraba Kojo, complaining about the noise from his nightclub in Fijai. Justice Sedina Agbemava presided over the case and found the musician guilty of contempt of court, leading to his imprisonment.
The case highlights the need for effective collaboration between state institutions and the courts to ensure the prompt execution of court orders. Bureaucratic procedures should not hinder the justice system’s efficiency, leading to unjust incarcerations. It is also a reminder that noise pollution is a significant issue that affects residents’ quality of life, and businesses must take measures to minimize their noise impact on the community.
For the most part, Nhyiraba Kojo’s imprisonment raises questions about the fairness of the justice system and the need for timely execution of court orders. It also highlights the need for state institutions to work collaboratively to ensure prompt and efficient service delivery. Ultimately, the case serves as a reminder that individuals and businesses must consider their impact on the community, and take appropriate measures to minimize any negative effects, including noise pollution.
Comments are closed.