Renowned legal scholar Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare has raised concerns about the growing need for restraint in judicial communication, emphasizing that the authority of courts extends beyond decisions to the language used in delivering them.
As a Fellow in Public Law and Development at the Ghana Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), he argued that judicial words carry lasting consequences and must therefore be carefully chosen.
According to Professor Asare, courts do not merely decide cases but also shape the interpretation and perception of the law. He noted that judicial language must be disciplined and anchored in necessity, warning that unguarded expressions can undermine public confidence in the legal system.
“When judges speak, their words carry meaning, authority, consequence, and permanence,” he stated, underscoring the weight attached to judicial pronouncements.
Concerns from Recent Rulings
The call for restraint follows recent court decisions that, in his view, demonstrate a departure from measured judicial reasoning. In one defamation case, a High Court judge reportedly used sweeping language to describe a litigant, extending beyond the requirements of resolving the dispute.
Professor Asare argued that even where misconduct is alleged, judicial reasoning should remain focused on legal findings rather than broad character assessments.
He maintained that courts are tasked with determining culpability, not issuing expansive moral judgments that go beyond the evidence before them. “The question is not whether a judge can say such things. The question is whether a judge should,” he explained.
A similar concern arises from a family law case in which a judge’s remarks about a spouse’s age and perceived ability to remarry introduced subjective considerations into the decision-making process.
Such commentary, he suggested, risks shifting judicial reasoning away from principles of fairness and legal rights toward speculative assumptions.
Neutrality and Legal Boundaries
Professor Asare also highlighted instances where judicial commentary appears to stray into political territory. References to legislative processes in terms that suggest political motives, he argued, blur the line between legal interpretation and political analysis.
Courts, he emphasized, are mandated to interpret laws based on evidence and established legal principles. Assigning political intent, unless firmly grounded in the record and necessary to the case, risks undermining the perception of judicial neutrality.
He warned that such commentary can create the impression that courts are engaging in matters beyond their constitutional role. The issue becomes even more sensitive when judicial statements carry broader institutional implications.
Observations that could affect ongoing constitutional matters or influence prosecutorial authority require a high degree of caution. In such situations, Professor Asare stressed the importance of institutional awareness and respect for the hierarchy of the courts.
Everyday Decisions and Public Trust
Beyond high-profile cases, the legal scholar drew attention to routine judicial decisions that also shape public perception. He pointed to instances where individuals are remanded on minor charges despite presenting minimal risk of absconding, noting that such decisions must be carefully justified.
For many citizens, the courtroom represents their most direct interaction with the justice system. When decisions appear arbitrary or insufficiently explained, it can erode trust in the rule of law.
Professor Asare argued that both the substance of judicial decisions and the language used to communicate them must reflect fairness and clarity. He cautioned that careless words or poorly explained rulings can have far-reaching consequences.
These include prejudicing future proceedings, damaging reputations unnecessarily, and creating perceptions of bias. In extreme cases, they may blur the distinction between adjudication and commentary, weakening the credibility of judicial outcomes.
Principles for Judicial Discipline
To address these concerns, Professor Asare outlined three key principles that should guide judicial expression. The first is necessity, which requires judges to limit their remarks to what is essential for resolving the case.
The second is neutrality, ensuring that language remains detached and free from personal or emotional overtones. The third is institutional awareness, which calls for sensitivity to the broader legal framework and the roles of other institutions.
He argued that adherence to these principles will help maintain the integrity of the judiciary and reinforce public confidence in its decisions. Measured language, he noted, reassures the public that judgments are based on law rather than personal inclination.
Upholding Judicial Integrity
Professor Asare concluded that the debate is not about whether judges arrive at correct outcomes but about how they exercise their authority in doing so. Judicial power, he emphasizes, is expressed not only through orders but also through words.
“The authority of the court rests not only on what it decides but on how it says it,” he stated, reinforcing the need for discipline in judicial communication.
As Ghana continues to strengthen its democratic and legal institutions, the call for measured judicial language serves as a reminder that the credibility of the courts depends on both substance and expression.
For Professor Asare, ensuring that judicial reasoning remains precise, neutral, and grounded in necessity will be key to sustaining trust in the justice system.
READ ALSO: BoG Reports Mixed Economic Start to 2026
