The Courts survival depends on stability and adherence to principle: Prof Kwaku Asare (Kwaku Azar) writes

Read Time: 2 minutes

Politicians can champion a position in the morning and oppose it by evening. But courts cannot afford such inconsistency. Their very survival depends on stability and adherence to principle.

Courts derive their legitimacy from the steadfast, even-handed application of the law. The moment they falter—interpreting the same facts to support jurisdiction in one case but deny it in another—they chip away at public trust.

Courts cannot extol the right to a fair hearing, only to decide some cases in ex parte hearings.

Courts can’t resolve some disputes in a matter of hours, while others, equally significant, languish for years.

Courts can’t enjoin an MP from serving their constituents for 15 months, while underscoring the sanctity of representation in other cases.

People can accept decisions they disagree with, as long as those decisions are consistent.

What citizens resist is what they perceive as “ananse justice” for some and “ntikuma justice” for others. Such disparities breed suspicion and resentment.

When courts fail to apply principles evenly, the public tunes out, disregarding rulings that may, in truth, contain sound reasoning.

Consistency isn’t just an ideal; it’s the foundation of judicial legitimacy.

When courts become inconsistent, they cease to be guardians of justice and start resembling politicians.

Many of us have already tuned out our politicians. Sadly, too many of us are also beginning to tune out the courts as well.

Whither are we drifting, when even the courts that are supposed to be the last bastion of fairness and reason begin to lose our trust?

SALL is the cardinal sin of the 8th Parliament.

Da Yie!