The recent nomination of seven Court of Appeal judges to the Supreme Court by President John Dramani Mahama has sparked controversy, particularly regarding the procedural aspects of the nomination process. Former legal counsel to ex-President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, Kow Essuman, has criticized the President for deviating from established norms and potentially undermining the independence of the judiciary. The controversy centers on the method by which the nominations were communicated to the Judicial Council. President Mahama, acting under Article 144(2) of the 1992 Constitution, nominated Justices Sir Dennis Dominic Adjei, Gbiel Simon Suurbaareh, Senyo Dzamefe, Kweku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo, Philip Bright Mensah, Janapare Bartels-Kodwo, and Hafisata Amaleboba. However, instead of following the conventional route, the Secretary to the President wrote directly to the Acting Chief Justice, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, bypassing the Attorney-General’s office.
Essuman argues that this direct communication is a departure from established practice, which dictates that the President should inform the Attorney-General of the nominations. The Attorney-General then presents these nominations to the Judicial Council during its meeting. This established procedure, according to Essuman, serves as a critical check and balance within the judicial appointment process. It ensures that the nominations are properly vetted and discussed within the Judicial Council before being formally presented to the President for final approval. By bypassing the Attorney-General, President Mahama’s actions raise concerns about potential undue influence and a disregard for the established protocols designed to safeguard the integrity of the judicial appointment process.
Essuman contends that this deviation from established protocol is not an isolated incident. He points to past instances where President Mahama allegedly disregarded advice from the Judicial Council, further substantiating his claim of a pattern of behavior that disregards established legal norms and potentially undermines the independence of the judiciary. This alleged history of disregarding established legal practices paints a concerning picture of a potential trend towards executive overreach in judicial appointments. The concern is that such actions could erode the separation of powers and compromise the impartiality of the judiciary.
The core of Essuman’s criticism revolves around the principle of the separation of powers and the importance of upholding the independence of the judiciary. He argues that President Mahama’s actions, by circumnavigating the established role of the Attorney-General, create a potentially dangerous precedent. This direct communication, he asserts, could be perceived as an attempt to exert undue influence over the Judicial Council and potentially compromise its independence. The established procedure, which involves the Attorney-General acting as an intermediary, serves as a buffer against such potential influence, ensuring that the Judicial Council can freely assess the suitability of the nominees without any perceived pressure from the executive branch.
Furthermore, Essuman raises concerns about the broader implications of such actions on the rule of law. He argues that consistent adherence to established legal procedures is essential for maintaining public trust in the legal system. By deviating from established protocol, President Mahama’s actions risk creating a perception of arbitrariness and potentially undermining the public’s confidence in the integrity of judicial appointments. This perceived disregard for established procedures could erode public trust in the judiciary and, by extension, the rule of law. The predictability and transparency afforded by established procedures are crucial for maintaining public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the judicial system.
The controversy surrounding these nominations highlights the delicate balance between the executive and judicial branches of government. The established procedures for judicial appointments are designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and the independence of the judiciary. By bypassing these established procedures, President Mahama’s actions have raised concerns about potential overreach and the potential erosion of these critical principles. The ongoing debate underscores the need for strict adherence to established legal procedures to safeguard the integrity of the judicial appointment process and maintain public trust in the rule of law. The independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, and any actions that potentially compromise this independence warrant careful scrutiny and robust public discourse.
