Photo: Members of the bench at Jubilee House
One result of a Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo presidency that seems most likely to disturb and strangulate opposition political parties is his ability to shape the courts for many decades to come, long after he’s gone.
President Akufo-Addo has radically packed the courts within three years of his four-year mandate.
In a bid to reshape the judiciary, President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo on July 3, 2018, appointed four justices to the Supreme Court following the retirement of some long-serving judges.
Announcing the nominees, the President cited Article 144(2) of the 1992 Constitution as his source of authority to appoint Justice Samuel K. Marful-Sau and Justice Agnes M.A. Dordzie (both of the Court of Appeal), former Ghana Bar Association President Nene A.O. Amegatcher, and academic Prof. Nii Ashie Kotey, a former Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Ghana.
In November 2019, the President made fresh appointments to the Supreme Court.
Three judges—Justice Mariama Owusu, Justice Lovelace Johnson, and Justice Gertrude Tokornoo—were elevated from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court bench.
On Tuesday, 17th December 2019, President Akufo-Addo swore into office forty-five (45) Justices of the High Court and Court of Appeal, based on the advice of the Judicial Council, at a ceremony at Jubilee House.
The forty-five comprised thirty-four (34) High Court Judges and eleven (11) Court of Appeal Judges, all deemed eminently fit and qualified for the positions.
Among the 34 High Court appointees, there were 22 women and 12 men; and among the 11 Court of Appeal appointees, 5 women and 6 men.
Then, on March 3, 2020, President Akufo-Addo made further appointments to the Supreme Court. The three nominees—Lawyer Yoni Kulendi of Kulendi @ Law Chambers, Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, and Clemence J. Honyenuga—were selected to replace Justices Julius Ansah, Nasiru Sulemana Gbadegbe, and Anthony Alfred Bennin.
This brought the total number of judicial appointments under Akufo-Addo’s presidency to fifty-five (55) within three years.
Even though there is nothing in the Constitution that defines the maximum number of justices a president can appoint during his or her tenure, the sheer volume of appointments risks eroding public confidence in the judiciary, especially considering the increasingly partisan loyalty many appointees appear to exhibit towards their appointors.
“For political parties running for president, it would be wise to tread carefully before taking positions that could hurt them and their party in 2020 and beyond,” a connoisseur of Ghanaian politics told this paper. “It’s dangerous for the judicial system, and the result could be catastrophic,” he warned.
According to him, the thinking behind the appointments appears to be to secure a judiciary that will affirm executive decisions, even those loudly opposed by minority political groups.
He stressed that in securing judicial independence, the appointment process mustn’t produce politically biased judges, or judges who feel beholden to the appointing authority or any other political actor. “In Ghana’s case, it appears the executive’s control over sensitive appointments undermines the solemn principle of separation of powers, crucial for the preservation of the rule of law,” he argued.
He acknowledged that this issue did not begin with President Akufo-Addo and that some independent-minded judges have been appointed via the same constitutional processes in the past. However, he warned that the growing invasion of “cronyism and secret soundings” in judicial appointments cannot be overlooked.
“The act of selecting judges predominantly from a few commercial law firms in Accra only heightens suspicions that Ghanaians are fast losing confidence in the judiciary and its decisions. This practice fosters the perception that only a small elite, fortunate enough to work at certain firms, are being railroaded into the judiciary—fostering deep links between these firms and the bench,” he noted.
He recommended strengthening the independence of the appointing authority to ensure that appointed judges can act freely and independently, without political or external pressures.
“In some developed countries, the appointment process is entrusted to a Judicial Appointments Committee made up of jurists and laypersons, which makes merit-based selections from a pool of qualified applicants,” he suggested.
He also stressed that security of tenure is crucial to judicial independence, ensuring that judges cannot be dismissed for making unfavourable or unpopular decisions against the government.
Finally, he called for the establishment of an independent judicial welfare fund, separate from the consolidated fund, to shield judges’ salaries and benefits from political manipulation. This, he said, would safeguard the judiciary against undue political pressure.
About The Author
