The dismissal of the injunction application filed by Vincent Ekow Assifuah, Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, seeking to prevent President Mahama from suspending Chief Justice Gertrude Esaaba Torkonoo, has sparked a debate surrounding the composition of the judicial panel assigned to the case. Assifuah’s primary concern revolves around the inclusion of Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie in the panel, arguing that his potential personal gain from the outcome creates a conflict of interest and undermines the perceived impartiality of the proceedings. This concern was formally raised by Assifuah’s counsel, former Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame, who objected to Baffoe-Bonnie presiding over the case. Despite these objections, the panel, comprising Baffoe-Bonnie, Justice Henrietta Mensah Bonsu, Justice Yonny Kulendi, Justice Amadu Tanko, and Justice Ernest Gaewu, remained unchanged, and the injunction application was subsequently dismissed.
Assifuah maintains that the objection was not intended to challenge the authority of the Acting Chief Justice to form the panel but rather to uphold the principles of transparency and fairness within the judiciary. He emphasizes the importance of public perception and the need for judicial processes to be not only legally sound but also demonstrably just. He argues that the presence of Baffoe-Bonnie on the panel creates an appearance of bias, potentially eroding public trust in the judiciary’s ability to act impartially. This, he posits, is detrimental to the integrity of the entire judicial system. His argument hinges on the principle that justice should not only be served but also be seen to be served, promoting confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.
The core of Assifuah’s argument centers on the concept of perceived bias. He stresses that even if the Acting Chief Justice acts with complete impartiality, the mere appearance of a conflict of interest can damage public trust in the judiciary. The impartiality of the judiciary is crucial, according to Assifuah, because it forms the bedrock of a just and equitable society. When the public loses faith in the neutrality of judges, the entire legal framework becomes vulnerable. Therefore, he argues that protecting the appearance of fairness is just as crucial as ensuring the actual fairness of judicial proceedings.
By raising this objection, Assifuah aimed to highlight the potential for perceived bias and its potential repercussions on public trust. He underscores that maintaining judicial integrity requires not only adherence to legal procedures but also a demonstrable commitment to avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. He insists that judges must not only be impartial but also be perceived as impartial. This, he believes, is essential for maintaining public confidence in the legal system and ensuring that justice is not only delivered but also seen to be delivered.
The case brings into sharp focus the delicate balance between judicial efficiency and the imperative to maintain public trust. While the Acting Chief Justice may have the legal authority to constitute the panel, Assifuah’s argument highlights the ethical considerations that should guide such decisions. The dismissal of the objection raises questions about the weight given to the appearance of fairness in judicial proceedings and the potential impact of such decisions on the public’s perception of the judiciary.
This incident underscores the ongoing discussion about the importance of maintaining transparency and impartiality within the judicial system. Assifuah’s concerns, regardless of the legal outcome, contribute to a larger conversation about the importance of public perception and its role in upholding the integrity of the judicial process. The debate underscores that upholding justice requires more than just adhering to legal procedures; it also necessitates fostering public trust and ensuring that judicial actions are not only legally sound but also perceived as fair and impartial. This requires a continuous effort by the judiciary to demonstrate its commitment to transparency and to address any potential conflicts of interest proactively.
