A private legal practitioner Mr Bobby Banson has defended the judge who jailed actress Akuapem Poloo saying there was no error on the part of Justice Christiana Cann.
Mr Banson explained on the Key Points on TV3 Saturday April 17 that the judge exercised her discretion within the remit of the law to sentence Akuapem who admitted guilt in court.
Socialite Rosemond Alade Brown, popularly known as Akuapem Polio received a 90-day prison sentence after being found guilty of stripping naked in front of her seven-year-old son.
The judgement was given on Friday, April 16 by an Accra Circuit Court. The sentenced attracted widespread criticism on social media with scores saying it was harsh.
The single mother pleaded guilty to all three counts, one of which is publication of obscene material in 2020.
She is supposed to spend 90 days in prison for each count but the terms are to run concurrently.
On Wednesday, April 14, Akuapem Poloo was convicted on her own plea but asked to go for a pregnancy test before judgement was given.
The test came out negative.
In pronouncing judgement, Justice Christiana Cann considered some extenuating circumstances such as the fact that the wailing Rosemond Brown has had no brush with the law and the fact that she is a single mother and the trauma her son would be going through.
The case was brought before the police in June, 2020 by the Executive Director of Child Rights International, Bright Appiah.
Since her jailing, scores of Ghanaians have criticized the judge for handing what they call harsh sentence to the actress.
But Mr Bobby Banson told host of the Key Points Abena Tabi that “These same people making hashtags: free Akuapem Poloo, if a politician commits an offence and they say the court should allow the politician to go because he or she is a politician, they will say we are animal farm where some people are treated better than the other. Is it because Akuapem Poloo is a fellow socialite or celebrity?
“The court could have given her three years. Maybe because she is a first time offender that was why she was given three months.
“We cannot fault the judge for exercising her discretion allowed by law, unless we are saying she considered something which she should not have considered legally,” he said.