Amichi Must Allow the Law to Take Its Course
By Amichi Voices for Peace and Justice
The continuing discussion over the leadership of Amichi Development Union should not obscure one simple fact: there is a subsisting Order of a competent Court concerning the dispute.
People are entitled to disagree with that Order. Lawyers may differ on its meaning. Community stakeholders may believe that circumstances have changed since it was made.
But none of these, by itself, authorises anybody to disregard it.
That is the essence of the rule of law.
DISAGREEMENT DOES NOT CANCEL AN ORDER
A Court Order does not cease to exist because one party considers it inconvenient, wrongly made or overtaken by subsequent events.
If circumstances have changed, the proper course is to approach the Court.
If the Order is unclear, seek clarification.
If it is considered too broad, apply for its variation.
If a party believes it ought no longer to remain in force, ask that it be discharged or set aside.
What should not be encouraged is self-help — acting first and asking the Court questions afterwards.
THE ORDER WAS MADE TO PRESERVE THE SITUATION
The essence of an interlocutory or preservative Order is to prevent parties from taking steps capable of undermining the subject matter already before the Court.
It would therefore be dangerous for any person, group or institution to proceed on the assumption that its own interpretation is automatically superior to the Order presently in force.
Whether one supports the former executive, the Trustees, another group within ADU, or no faction at all, the standard should remain the same:
Respect the Court first. Challenge the Order through lawful process where necessary.
EXPIRATION OF TENURE DOES NOT AUTHORISE SELF-HELP
The fact that the tenure of the former President-General expired on 6 August 2026 is undoubtedly an important development.
But that development should be placed before the Court rather than used by either side as authority to determine the legal consequences for itself.
The former office holder cannot simply declare that the Order has created a fresh tenure.
Likewise, another organ should be cautious about declaring that the expiration of tenure has automatically extinguished the effect of the Order.
The Court that made the Order is best placed to determine its continuing effect in the light of subsequent events.
NO ONE SHOULD CREATE A FAIT ACCOMPLI
Amichi should resist any attempt to create a situation that would make the pending judicial proceedings meaningless.
An election, takeover, handover, dissolution or other fundamental alteration undertaken in the face of a subsisting restraint may create further litigation and deepen division within the community.
That would serve nobody.
The wiser course is restraint until the Court gives further direction.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT SUPPORTING ANY ADMINISTRATION
Supporting obedience to a Court Order is not the same thing as supporting the former President-General or any particular faction.
The principle protects everybody.
Today an Order may appear favourable to one side. Tomorrow another judicial decision may favour the opposite side.
What must remain constant is respect for the judicial process.
Amichi should therefore reject calls for any individual, group or institution to take the law into its own hands.
Nobody needs to disobey the Court in order to challenge its Order. The law itself provides the remedy.
Let whoever is dissatisfied return to Court.
Let whoever seeks clarification return to Court.
Let whoever believes circumstances have changed return to Court.
Until then, let restraint prevail.
A Court Order is not obeyed only when convenient. It remains an Order until lawfully varied, discharged or set aside.
That simple principle offers Amichi the safest path away from confrontation and towards an orderly resolution of the present disagreement.
AMICHI VOICES FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE
Respect the Court • Reject Self-Help • Preserve the Peace • One Amichi
No comments:
Post a Comment