Richard Dela Sky, a prominent lawyer and human rights advocate, has expressed strong reservations about the recent surge in appointments to the Supreme Court, arguing that it undermines the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Richard Sky stressed the importance of setting a clear and definitive threshold to prevent excessive appointments, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the appointment process and upholding the principles of justice, accountability, and democratic governance.

“However, while the respected MP Mahama Ayariga’s concerns regarding Supreme Court appointments warrant consideration, it is essential to recognize that the interpretation of the Constitution is exclusively within the domain of the judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court”.
“As a Member of Parliament, no matter how distinguished, he (respectfully) lacks the jurisdictional authority to render binding constitutional interpretations”.
Richard Dela Sky

He further pointed out that while Ayariga’s argument holds some weight, it constitutes a singular and subjective legal perspective, inherently open to contestation, multiple readings, and differing analytical approaches.

Richard Sky asserted that if Hon. Ayariga is confident in the merits of his argument, he should seek a definitive and binding ruling from the Supreme Court, rather than relying on Parliament or its committees, which are not empowered to provide a conclusive judicial interpretation.

He made it clear that Parliament’s primary responsibility is to discharge its constitutional duties impartially, without being swayed by individual members’ personal legal beliefs or opinions, no matter how sincere or well-intentioned.

As such, Richard Sky cautioned that accepting a preliminary objection based on a single member’s subjective interpretation, even if endorsed by others, would improperly supplant the judiciary’s constitutional role and potentially impede the legislative process.

He emphasized that this would consequently jeopardize the integrity of the constitutional structure, potentially destabilizing the very foundations of governance.

Committee Urged To Dismiss Objection, Continue Vetting

Moreover, Richard Dela Sky asserted that, accordingly, the Chair of the Appointment Committee of Parliament should dismiss the preliminary objection concerning the appointment of judges, providing clear and compelling reasons, and proceed with the vetting process without delay.

He noted that by doing so, Parliament’s constitutional obligations would be discharged without unnecessary encumbrance, ensuring the smooth functioning of the legislative process.

“In any event, the respected Bawku Central MP did not initially move a motion. He raised an issue asking that it be captured in the report of the House for subsequent consideration. Thus, he cannot subsequently seek to transform his preliminary observations into a motion demanding a vote at the committee level”.
Richard Dela Sky

Richard Sky asserted that members of parliament who wish to propose a motion can do so in a manner that is both procedurally correct and substantively sound, utilizing established channels and protocols.

On Tuesday, August 13th, 2024, Mahama Ayariga, MP for Bawku Central, questioned the President’s discretion to nominate Supreme Court judges in excess of the prescribed limit of 10, including the Chief Justice, highlighting potential issues with the appointment process.

He also asserted that the 1992 Constitution clearly defines the composition of the Supreme Court as comprising the Chief Justice and nine other justices, implying that any further appointments would necessitate a supporting legal instrument or constitutional provision.

Hon. Ayariga emphasized that simply because previous presidents have made the same mistake, it does not justify Parliament’s continued condoning or perpetuation of that error, but rather, it should correct and rectify the anomaly.

He further moved a motion requesting that the Appointments Committee of Parliament conduct a vote to determine whether to proceed with the vetting process, thereby seeking a formal decision from the committee members.

Mr. Ayariga’s concerns sparked a lively debate among committee members, with opinions divided, as some expressed support for his stance while others voiced opposition.