Professor Stephen Kweku Asare, a Democracy and Development (D&D) Fellow in Public Law and Justice at CDD-Ghana, has expressed deep concerns over the recent reshuffling of justices presiding over the case involving Opuni and Agogo, and called for immediate reforms in the country’s court panel system.
The KPMG Professor in accounting at the Fisher School of Accounting, in a statement called for the immediate reversal of the reshuffle to restore the original panel, demanding a full explanation for the sudden and controversial move.
He emphasized that at a time when public confidence in the judiciary is at an all-time low, any perceived arbitrariness could further erode trust in the system, highlighting the urgency for transparency in judicial proceedings.
“Any attempts to interfere with the composition of a panel without cause must be considered as an obstruction of Justice or interference with the administration of justice. Justices of the SC must also be assertive and refuse to be reshuffled without cause”.
Professor Stephen Kweku Asare, D&D Fellow , CDD-Ghana
Professor Asare noted that the Constitution of Ghana specifies that the Supreme Court (SC) is composed of the Chief Justice (CJ) and not less than nine other Justices, in which any five members can adjudicate a case, with a minimum of seven required for reviews.
However, Professor Asare stated that the process for selecting these justices remains undefined by the Constitution, leading to significant discretion being placed in the hands of the Chief Justice.
He recounted that historically, the practice by which the Chief Justice appoint justices to oversee trials has its roots from the National Liberation Council Decree (NLCD) 84 and the landmark case between Akuffo-Addo and Quarshie-Idun in 1968.
Professor Asare thus asserted that despite the presumed integrity of the Chief Justice, concerns persist about the potential for biased panel formations that could predetermine case outcomes.
He emphasized that such concerns are not merely theoretical by citing statement made by a renowned justices of the Supreme Court, Justice Atuguba that he was excluded from cases for six months, underscoring the real implications of an unchecked panel selection process.
“Justice Atuguba has publicly stated that he was frozen out of sitting in court cases for six months. These questions have exercised the mind of some CJs, with CJ Wiredu addressing it with a practice directive that all but 2 of the justices will sit in constitutional cases. The 2 then becomes available for review. The questions persist and it’s time for the Rules of Court Committee to address it”.
Professor Stephen Kweku Asare, D&D Fellow , CDD-Ghana
Calls for Action
Given these historical precedents and continuing questions, Professor Asare proposed a radical shift in the empaneling process of justices, emphasizing that the task of creating and scheduling panels should be transferred from the Chief Justice to the court’s registrar or registry.
Here, Professor Asare proposed that the court registry must use a verifiable random selection system, facilitated by court practice management software, to ensure impartiality in the empaneling process of justices.
Moreover, Professor Kweku Asare recommended that a minimum of nine justices should be allowed to preside over all constitutional cases to prevent differing rulings on similar issues, citing past inconsistencies such as those observed in a case involving one Osei Boateng.
Professor Asare also asserted that the Chief Justice, in his role as a judge, should remain primus inter pares, with only one vote on a panel and should not exercise any authority to exclude other justices or influence panel compositions.
He emphasized that once a panel is constituted, no reshuffling should occur without clear, justified cause, adding that the Chief Justice should not have the power to “freeze” other members or decide who should and should not hear a case.
The Democracy and Development Fellow (D&D) Fellow in Public Law and Justice at CDD-Ghana concluded his statement by stressing the necessity for transparent, random, and unbiased processes to maintain public trust and ensure fair judicial proceedings.
