Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Godfred Dame, has expressed his disappointment in comments made by former President, John Dramani Mahama, on the Judiciary.

According to him, such conduct is “clearly deplorable”, especially coming from someone who has occupied the highest office of President and aspires again to that office. Mr Dame revealed that he expresses such sentiment not because he stands in opposition to former President Mahama as a politician.

Mr Dame however indicated that his dismay is founded more on the fact that he is a lawyer and every lawyer ought to be concerned about these kinds of views expressed by a political leader in the country.

Security Consultant Urges Hotline, Political Courage in Galamsey Fight

The More Lawyers, the Better for Rule of Law – Professor Asare Insists on Expansion of Legal Education

Western Region Launches Investment Centre to Drive Local Prosperity

“The Judiciary has shown consistently that it is the last line of defence for our country. It was thus with great dismay and embarrassment that I heard a person who has occupied the highest office of State, former President John Mahama, recently launch an unwarranted attack on the integrity of Ghana’s Judiciary.”
Godfred Dame

Speaking on the theme: ‘Democracy in the Fourth Republic, Gains, Prospects and Challenges’, at this year’s Ghana Bar Association Conference, Mr Dame revealed that Mr Mahama’s statements is the “latest instalment of systematic and caustic attacks” on the courts, albeit unjustified. He explained that there is the need to address the issue as it borders on the security of the state and “constitute a deliberate pattern of conduct aimed at undermining the independence of the Judiciary”, an arm of government whose autonomy is crucial to its proper functioning.

“It will be a sore omission if I fail to recognise that there have been other leaders of the political party to which the former President belongs – the National Democratic Congress (NDC). I do not recall either the late Jerry John Rawlings or the late Prof John Evans Atta Mills mount such a systematic and deliberate campaign of hate against the Judiciary. In fact, never once did Mr Mahama’s former boss, Prof Mills launch any attack at all on the Judiciary.”
Godfred Dame

Election petition by Mahama

The Attorney-General stated that the former President’s “unjustified attacks” on the Judiciary is as a result of the unanimous dismissal by the Supreme Court of his rather “porous election” petition. He highlighted that the petition was “dead on arrival” and bound to be dismissed by any court worth its salt in any country.

“One cannot fail to note that his petition before the Court in 2021 was a bundle of incompetent claims devoid of any substance. As stated already, the allegations of ‘wrong aggregation of votes’ and ‘vote padding’, which he put before the Court, collectively involved only 6,622 votes, a figure which could not in any way affect the outcome of the presidential election. It is therefore perplexing how, if such a petition is dismissed by the Court, it should form the basis for allegations of unfair treatment by the Court.”
Godfred Dame

Mr Dame emphasized the duty of the courts to administer justice according to law as it is not a “mercy chamber” to serve justice based on sympathy or affection. He further expressed worry that Mr Mahama, “a non-lawyer”, made those comments at a meeting of the Legal Committee of his political party. With this, he contended the fact that none of the lawyers present at the meeting “raised a finger to contest the wrong and dangerous propaganda” by the former President.

“By their silence, they became abettors of the propagation of hate against the Judiciary. It is worrying because lawyers ought to be the loudest and strongest defenders of the independence, integrity and importance of the Judiciary rather than serving as tools for its destruction.”
Godfred Dame

Nonetheless, Mr Dame commended the former President for his contribution to the debate on the need for constitutional reform. His views on the need to amend article 71 on the payment of emoluments to certain office holders, he revealed, are of interest to him.