A century and fifty years in the life of an institution is such a long time. When such an entity’s role is about administering justice with integrity in a given ambience, such an occasion offers us an opportunity to reflect upon the journey so far with a view to advancing productive thoughts which would build confidence in its performance.
The Supreme Court, the apex of the court system by its age, should be imbibed with unrivaled knowledge and command reverence and confidence of the people for which it exists.
Many developments have occurred since the birthing of the Supreme Court to date, which primes us to critique its performance vis-à-vis justice administration without avoidable sentiments.
The history of the Supreme Court which was birthed during the colonial chapter of our colonial story is chequered and attracting motley impressions. These all offer us scopes to critique and applaud the performance of the system over the years.
Any action or inaction which impugns upon the integrity of the judiciary which the Supreme Court represents must be avoided.
As a former Speaker of Parliament said during the launch of the anniversary at the University of Ghana, Legon, the tendency to be selective of the decisions as the final arbiter should be avoided. When this is allowed to fester, it would erode the confidence in the judiciary, leading to a fractured democracy among other challenges.
In the beginning when Ghana was blessed with the first indigenous Chief Justice in the person of Sir Arku Korsah, Ghanaians smiled, especially nationalistic-minded members of the bar. That one of them had taken up the mantle of leadership of the judiciary was especially exhilarating, but this was short-lived.
The first President, Kwame Nkrumah, while on his journey to create a one-party state, exhibited dictatorial tendencies rather early. He fired the Chief Justice and stunned his compatriots; the judiciary drew its first shot from the executive.
There was no doubt that by this action he had silenced all possible dissent in the country, especially among members of the bench.
A series of military adventurism popped up in the country, one of them hitting the judiciary hard.
Three High Court judges were abducted and murdered in a manner which implicated persons in authority. The judiciary had been dealt a devastating blow considering the manner in which the murder was undertaken and the reason behind the crime.
Our President’s project of balancing the judiciary, as he once said during his many campaign time rhetoric, was not favourable to the image of this arm of government. It created room for doubts about the independence of the judiciary when upon assuming the leadership of the country he set out to ‘reset for balancing’. A suggestion that in his estimation the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court is politicised, is reprehensible and unbecoming of a politician of his status.
That was not all. He was reported to have encouraged National Democratic Congress (NDC)–inclined lawyers to make themselves available for appointments to the bench. It was such a reckless political talk whose far-reaching fallouts continues to haunt the image of the judiciary.
During the inauguration of the 150th anniversary of the mother court, one name was missing, the lady whose ouster was embroiled in unfavourable nuances.
Many consider her ouster as part of the President’s reset agenda. It will remain a subject of discussion for many years in the history of the judiciary, perhaps following in the heels of the ouster of Justice Arku Korsah.
