The recent nomination of seven new justices to the Supreme Court by President John Dramani Mahama has reignited a robust national conversation around judicial appointments, the size of the apex court, and the transparency of the processes involved.
While the President’s constitutional authority to nominate justices remains undisputed, prominent legal minds are questioning the timing, intent, and implications of these latest nominations.
Among those speaking out are seasoned legal practitioners Frank Davies and Martin Kpebu, both of whom acknowledge the constitutional prerogative of the President to make such nominations
The two, however, called for broader national engagement on the matter, particularly as the new appointments will significantly increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court bench.
The nominations, which include Justices Sir Dennis Dominic Adjei, Gbiel Simon Suurbaareh, Senyo Dzamefe, Kweku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo, Philip Bright Mensah, Janapare Bartels-Kodwo, and Hafisata Amaleboba, will, if approved, increase the number of justices on the apex court from approximately 12 to 19.
This expansion has prompted scrutiny not only over the optics of such a move but also the precedent it sets for future administrations.
Frank Davies, a seasoned legal practitioner with extensive courtroom experience before the nominated justices, offered a cautious but pointed response to the development.
“There are going to be interesting times ahead for the judiciary,” Davies noted, acknowledging the President’s unfettered constitutional right to nominate justices to the Supreme Court.
He congratulated the nominees, especially those he has interacted with throughout their judicial careers, but expressed unease about the timing and potential motivations behind the nominations.
Davies recalled comments made by President Mahama in opposition, where he addressed a group of lawyers affiliated with the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and suggested the need for more party-aligned judges to “balance the equation” following numerous appointments made by then-President Akufo-Addo.
“So, if on the back of that, the president at this stage nominates seven names for consideration by the judicial council to the Supreme Court, then the optics for me is for Ghanaians to judge”.
Frank Davis
For him, while the constitution allows such nominations, the implications for judicial independence and public perception must not be ignored.
Implications of Increasing Supreme Court Size
Echoing similar concerns but from a different angle, human rights lawyer Martin Kpebu raised alarm over the increasing size of the Supreme Court and the lack of public consultation preceding the nominations.
He pointed to the need for a “national conversation” before any move to exceed the conventional number of justices—typically pegged at 14 or 15, including the Chief Justice.
“We said, let’s have a national conversation. If you are going to break a convention, let’s sit around the table and debate it robustly,” Kpebu argued.
Referencing past legal and policy precedents, including Ghana’s experience under the African Peer Review Mechanism during President Kufuor’s administration, Kpebu emphasised that Ghana has previously been cautioned for surpassing the conventional number of justices at the Supreme Court.
He further invoked the case of Ghana Bar Association v Attorney General, in which the issue of judicial appointments and the need for transparent processes were raised. According to Kpebu, the recent nominations disregard this historical context and established norms.
Kpebu was particularly concerned about the nomination of justices who, while undoubtedly competent, appear junior compared to some of their peers in the appellate courts.
He noted that three of the nominees—Sir Dennis Dominic Adjei, Justice Gbiel Simon Suurbaareh, and Justice Senyo Dzamefe—had long been regarded as deserving of elevation.
However, he warned that the inclusion of relatively junior judges risks politicizing the appointment process and weakening public confidence in judicial promotions.
“There are other judges who were nominated by the President, that’s going to generate a lot of arguments… people were making arguments that they are taking people who are far junior to rise to the Supreme Court.”
Martin Kpebu
He cautioned against selective elevation without clear criteria or public explanation, which could undermine the integrity of the judicial system.
Despite their criticisms, both lawyers affirmed that the President had followed formal due process, particularly in forwarding the nominations to the Judicial Council, which is constitutionally mandated to review and advise on such appointments.
Kpebu explained that the Judicial Council retains the authority to advise the President to limit the nominations if some candidates do not meet their vetting standards.
“So what it means is that all of the seven the president has sent, the Judicial Council can come back and say, ‘we believe only five really merit an appointment,’ and the president has no choice but to stay within that limit”.
Martin Kpebu
However, the larger concern for both lawyers remains the lack of public engagement on the matter.
They argued that issues of judicial appointments, especially those that could shift the structure and perceived independence of the Supreme Court, warrant robust public dialogue.
Kpebu cited the works of Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare (Kwaku Azar), who has advocated for greater public involvement in judicial governance and the necessity of protecting the judiciary from political meddling.
For Davies and Kpebu, legitimacy—making sure that judicial appointments are regarded as fair, balanced, and free from partisan considerations—is more important than legality.
They feel that Ghana is at a turning point where institutions need to show not only procedural correctness but also democratic accountability, especially since the number of justices is expected to increase significantly.
In the words of Martin Kpebu, “We feel left out. We’ve not been involved in this conversation.” As Ghana prepares for a potentially pivotal period in its judicial history, the calls for transparency, consultation, and institutional integrity will only grow louder.
READ ALSO: Ghana Records 10% Surge in Gas Production
