CDD Ghana Fellow, Dr John Osae-Kwapong has urged Ghanaians to respect judicial decisions even when they disagree with the outcome, arguing that confidence in democratic institutions remains essential to preserving the rule of law. The political scientist indicated that the recent Court of Appeal ruling acquitting and discharging former MASLOC Chief Executive Sedinam Tamakloe once again highlights the delicate balance between legal procedure, public expectations and confidence in the judiciary.
Discussing the implications of the judgement, Dr Osae-Kwapong acknowledged that many citizens continue to debate the legal reasoning behind the decision. Even so, the CDD Fellow stressed that the most important principle lies in recognising that criminal cases must meet strict constitutional standards before anyone could be convicted.
According to him, one aspect that attracted his attention is the burden of proof in criminal proceedings. From his perspective, the Constitution places that responsibility on the prosecution, making it impossible to transfer that obligation to an accused person regardless of public opinion surrounding a case.
“No matter how much we disagree with an institution’s decision, we are still able to give the court that benefit of the doubt without impugning motive or some conspiracy that’s going on.”
Dr John Osae-Kwapong
Furthermore, Dr Osae-Kwapong observed that disagreements over court judgements often create competing interpretations among the public. The CDD Fellow explained that such tensions rarely produce simple answers because legal principles, political interests and public expectations frequently intersect.
Against this backdrop, he encouraged citizens to distinguish personal disappointment from institutional legitimacy. The emphasis, he noted, should remain on preserving confidence in constitutional bodies while allowing lawful processes to take their course.
Additionally, Dr Osae-Kwapong pointed out that every individual ultimately decides whether to trust an institution or question its motives. Nevertheless, he argued that democratic societies function best when disagreements do not automatically translate into allegations of bias or hidden political influence.
The CDD Fellow further explained that accepting an institutional decision does not require complete agreement with its outcome. Instead, consideration should be given to the fact that courts operate within established legal procedures designed to protect the rights of every citizen appearing before them.
Court Transparency Strengthens Public Confidence In Justice Delivery
Continuing his assessment of the Court of Appeal’s decision, CDD Ghana Fellow, Dr John Osae-Kwapong emphasised the importance of improving public understanding of judicial processes, arguing that greater transparency can help strengthen confidence in the courts. He observed that legal disputes involving high profile public figures often attract competing interpretations, making public education an essential part of protecting institutional credibility.
Addressing the wider implications of the ruling, Dr Osae-Kwapong noted that public trust in key democratic institutions has declined in recent years. The CDD Fellow referenced findings from Afrobarometer Round 10, explaining that the judiciary now operates in an environment where many citizens approach institutional decisions with scepticism.
According to him, this situation creates a difficult balance between ensuring accountability for public officials and protecting the constitutional independence of the courts. At the same time, he stressed that every accused person is entitled to the legal safeguards guaranteed under Ghana’s justice system.
Furthermore, Dr Osae-Kwapong commended constitutional lawyer Professor Kwaku Asare for providing a detailed public explanation of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning. Such efforts, he observed, help ordinary citizens understand how judges interpret legal provisions and why particular conclusions are reached.
“The sharing of information can help mitigate against some of these things. It is also good that there is still one more step.”
Dr John Osae-Kwapong
Moreover, the CDD Fellow explained that the judicial process itself contains several layers of review that strengthen confidence in the administration of justice. He pointed out that appeals from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and ultimately to the Supreme Court provide additional opportunities for legal questions to receive careful examination.
In addition, Dr Osae-Kwapong argued that these safeguards reinforce the integrity of the justice system while reducing the likelihood of irreversible legal errors. The availability of further appeals, he added, gives both the prosecution and the defence an avenue to challenge decisions through established constitutional procedures.
Turning to the legal issues raised by the ruling, Dr Osae-Kwapong acknowledged that some aspects initially appeared highly technical. Nevertheless, the CDD Fellow explained that constitutional protections exist for a reason and cannot be overlooked simply because a case attracts widespread public attention.
“If the Constitution says you need to be given those details, then you have to be specific.”
Dr John Osae-Kwapong
Subsequently, he indicated that defective charge sheets and evidential shortcomings cannot be treated as insignificant procedural matters because they directly affect the fairness of criminal trials. The burden of proving every allegation, he emphasised, always rests with the prosecution and must satisfy the legal threshold established by the Constitution.
Dr Osae-Kwapong added that allegations alone cannot secure a conviction without adequate proof. He explained that courts require reliable evidence and credible witnesses before criminal responsibility can lawfully be established.
Similarly, the CDD Fellow remarked that institutional decisions frequently disappoint one side of a dispute. Even so, he argued that preserving confidence in constitutional bodies remains fundamental to democratic governance because courts must apply the law without yielding to political expectations or public pressure.
Drawing his observations together, Dr Osae-Kwapong encouraged sustained public engagement with judicial decisions through informed discussion instead of speculation. He added that clearer communication, civic education and transparency will continue to strengthen public confidence while allowing the legal process to perform its constitutional role.
READ ALSO: Mahama Government Backs Five-Year Presidential Term Reform
