The recent nomination of seven Court of Appeal judges to the Supreme Court by President John Dramani Mahama has sparked controversy, with criticism focusing on the procedural aspects of the nominations. Kow Essuman, former legal counsel to ex-President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, has sharply rebuked President Mahama’s approach, arguing that it deviates from established constitutional protocol and potentially undermines the independence of the judiciary. The core of the contention lies in the President’s decision to communicate the nominations directly to the Acting Chief Justice through the Secretary to the President, effectively bypassing the Attorney-General and the established role of the Judicial Council in the vetting process.
Essuman contends that the constitutionally prescribed procedure mandates the involvement of the Attorney-General as the intermediary between the President and the Judicial Council. According to established practice, the President informs the Attorney-General of his nominations, who then presents these nominations to the Judicial Council for review. The Judicial Council, responsible for assessing the suitability of the candidates, subsequently advises the President on their recommendations. This process, Essuman argues, ensures a degree of checks and balances and safeguards against arbitrary appointments to the highest court in the land. By circumventing this established procedure, President Mahama’s actions raise concerns about potential disregard for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
Essuman’s critique highlights the significance of the Judicial Council’s role in the appointment process. The Council, composed of experienced legal professionals, is tasked with evaluating the nominees’ qualifications, experience, and integrity. Their assessment provides crucial input to the President, helping ensure that appointments to the Supreme Court are based on merit and not political considerations. By bypassing the Council’s involvement, President Mahama’s actions raise questions about the transparency and impartiality of the nomination process. This direct communication with the Acting Chief Justice, Essuman argues, sets a concerning precedent that could potentially politicize judicial appointments and erode public trust in the judiciary.
Furthermore, Essuman points to a historical pattern of President Mahama allegedly disregarding the advice of the Judicial Council in previous judicial appointments. This alleged disregard for established procedures, combined with the current controversy, fuels concerns about a potential trend towards undermining the authority of the Judicial Council and the independence of the judiciary. Essuman’s accusations portray a concerning picture of executive overreach, potentially jeopardizing the delicate balance of power between the different branches of government. Maintaining the integrity and independence of the judiciary is paramount for a functioning democracy, and any perceived attempts to circumvent established procedures warrant scrutiny.
The seven nominees put forward by President Mahama are Justice Sir Dennis Dominic Adjei, Justice Gbiel Simon Suurbaareh, Justice Senyo Dzamefe, Justice Kweku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo, Justice Philip Bright Mensah, Justice Janapare Bartels-Kodwo, and Justice Hafisata Amaleboba. While the qualifications and experience of these individuals are not the primary focus of the current debate, the controversy surrounding their nomination process casts a shadow over their potential appointments. Regardless of their individual merits, the procedural irregularities highlighted by Essuman raise concerns about the legitimacy of the process and the potential implications for the future of judicial appointments in Ghana.
The controversy surrounding President Mahama’s nominations underscores the crucial importance of adhering to established constitutional procedures, particularly when dealing with appointments to institutions as critical as the Supreme Court. The independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of a democratic society, and any actions that could potentially compromise this independence must be carefully scrutinized and addressed. Essuman’s critique serves as a reminder of the vigilance required to protect the integrity of democratic institutions and ensure that appointments to positions of power are conducted with transparency and adherence to the rule of law. The ongoing debate highlights the need for clarity and adherence to established procedures in judicial appointments to maintain public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the justice system.
