GHANA’S JUDICIAL CRISIS

Read Time: 3 minutes

A Supreme Court panel has ruled, predictably, as expected against the Speaker and Parliament on the issue of the vacation of seats by 4 MPs. Now, before you label me an ignoramus, I know this ruling was not on the merits. It is even possible, maybe likely, that the Court is right, not just on this but on the merits of the actual case. But the conduct of the court has led the venerable Tsatsu Tsikata to opine that we have a Judicial CRISIS that is more serious than our economic crisis! He is not alone. A former CJ has called the Supreme Court “too predictable “.

As to the substance of whether an MP who plans to contest as an independent or for another party can still in good faith claim allegiance to his current party, the answer is in equal parts, respectfully, both Judicial and Political. To illustrate, let us consider the Rawlings-Arkaah dispute of 1996. Vice-President Ackaah had agreed to be Kufour’s running mate for the next election seeking to unseat President Rawlings. Rawlings sought to end Arkaah’s presence in the cabinet ” buga-buga”. Suppose Rawlings had gone to court.

Could a Court had ruled in good conscience that Arkaah could stay as VP and participated in the deliberations of the cabinet of the man he planned to oppose in the next election? Can an NDC MP who plans to contest the next election on the NPP ticket be trusted to be a loyal member of the NDC Caucus, able to participate in its confidential deliberations till the next elections a year away? I leave you to reflect on whether these are purely Judicial questions or not. Was Speaker Bagbin doing politics when he declared the 4 seats vacant— rightly or wrongly? Of course he was.

But he was also doing politics when he ruled–wisely in 2021 that there were in Parliament– not caucuses but Majority and Minority groups. To assert that the Speaker was not doing politics is to pretend that Messi or Osei Kofi or Polo were/are not dribblers– or that the prettiest girl in my OKESS Era didn’t swing her hips when she walked.

The Judiciary in the last 4 years has allowed Domelovo’s sacking, blocked the transmission of the LGBTQ bill to the President and then intervened in this MP saga–at shockingly varying speeds, leaving the unfortunate impression that this Supreme Court is more interested in political maneuvering than Judicial rulings based on “stare decisis” or the purporsive interpretation of our constitution.

Despite the seductive idea that Supreme courts are infallible because they are final, there is always the judgement of history for every court and its decisions. The Dredd Scott decision of 1857, Plessy v Ferguson of 1896 and re:Akoto of 1960 all stand in eternal damnation of their authors, just as Marbury v Madison of 1803 and Tufour v AG of 1980 vindicate its authors. I and many others risked our lives to birth this 4 Republic. Let our Supreme Court honour our sacrifice, our constitution and our people by showing respect for our constitution and institutions. May God bless Ghana. Arthur Kobina Kennedy ( 1st November, 2024).