The African Judicial Independence Fund (AJIF) has warned that judicial independence must be depoliticized and protected at all costs as Ghana navigates the legal and political maze surrounding the possible removal of its Chief Justice.
This warning comes amid rising public debate and growing scrutiny of the constitutional process governing judicial accountability and removal.
At the heart of AJIF’s intervention is Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution—a provision that lays out the rules and boundaries for removing the Chief Justice from office.
According to AJIF, this process must remain sacrosanct and shielded from political maneuvering. It exists to preserve the judiciary’s autonomy, integrity, and dignity, not to serve partisan ends.
“The removal of the Chief Justice of Ghana is governed by Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution. According to this provision, the chief justice can only be removed from office for stated misbehaviour, incompetence, or on grounds of mental or physical incapacity.
“The process begins with a petition to the president, who must act in consultation with the Council of State to determine if there is a prima facie case (whether there is a case to answer on the face of the petition).”
African Judicial Independence Fund (AJIF)
According to AJIF, if such a case is established, an ad hoc committee is formed—consisting of two Supreme Court justices and three other members who cannot be parliamentarians, lawyers, or Council of State members.
The President, on the Council’s advice, may suspend the Chief Justice while this committee carries out its inquiry.
Importantly, the proceedings must be conducted in private, and the Chief Justice is guaranteed the right to a defense—either personally or through a legal representative.
However, while the process seems airtight on paper, AJIF is not fully convinced it offers sufficient protection against undue influence.
The organization took no position on the substance of current removal calls, but it flagged an urgent need for reform. Ghana’s current framework, AJIF warned, leaves “room for potential manipulation and undue political influence, and therefore requires urgent tightening.”
AJIF warned that in this climate of intense public scrutiny and executive pressure, judicial independence is more vulnerable than ever.
Accordingly, it cautioned that what’s at stake is not just one person’s job—it’s the credibility of the entire judicial system.
Judicial Independence Amid Diminishing Trust
Moreover, AJIF pointed out that its concerns have been echoed by civil society groups, legal experts, and public commentators.
During a public lecture on October 24, 2023, at the Kofi Drah Conference Centre, participants openly challenged the judiciary’s impartiality, with some warning of a deepening crisis of public trust and the alleged appointment of judges with political affiliations.
Media reports have only fueled the unease, highlighting what critics describe as executive overreach in judicial appointments.
As such, AJIF cautioned that unless these structural issues are addressed, even a constitutionally compliant decision on the Chief Justice’s removal will fall short of solving the root problem. It may, in fact, deepen it.
This is not just about legal technicalities. It’s about preserving the institutional soul of the country’s justice system.
According to the organization, judicial independence should never be a pawn on the political chessboard. When confidence in courts erodes, democracy begins to crumble.
“The real task lies in restoring public confidence by: Making transparent and merit-based judicial appointments; Strengthening the independence and integrity of the Judicial Council; Ensuring adequate resourcing and administrative autonomy of the judiciary; and Encouraging open public discourse on judicial accountability without undermining the rule of law.”
African Judicial Independence Fund (AJIF)
The broader message from AJIF is unmistakable: focus not just on individuals but on systems.
Any process that claims to uphold justice must do so holistically, not selectively. Decisions on the Chief Justice’s fate should be rooted in constitutionalism, not partisan agendas or public pressure.
“We therefore call on all stakeholders to pursue reform through deliberate, lawful, and participatory processes that uphold the sanctity and independence of the judiciary. Only then can we build a truly impartial and trusted system of justice.”
African Judicial Independence Fund (AJIF)
As the conversation continues, it’s clear that judicial independence is not a luxury—it’s the backbone of a functional democracy. Ghana’s leaders must choose wisely.
Will they lean into reform and safeguard one of the most sacred institutions of state, or allow political expediency to undermine public trust? The choice, though constitutional in form, is fundamentally moral in consequence.
READ ALSO: Tactical Voting Surge Threatens Reform UK Momentum
