Imagine Justice Pwamang Making Such A Statement Today, Ghana Would’ve Come To A Standstill —Cudjoe

IMANI Africa founder Franklin Cudjoe has drawn attention to what he considers a double standard in the reactions of political parties when serving or former Supreme Court judges make comments viewed as critical of a government.

Cudjoe shared a Facebook post by Justice Setufe, which referred to a statement previously attributed to former Supreme Court Justice Jones Dotse about the administration of the National Democratic Congress (NDC).

According to the post, Justice Dotse, while serving on the Supreme Court, described the NDC government’s approach as “create, loot and share.” The statement reportedly attracted attention because of its critical assessment of the administration.

Justice Setufe argued that the New Patriotic Party (NPP) welcomed and celebrated Justice Dotse’s remarks at the time because they were directed at a government led by its political opponents.

The post subsequently drew a comparison with a hypothetical situation involving another Supreme Court Justice, Gabriel Pwamang, questioning how the NPP and its supporters would react if he made a similar statement about the party’s previous administration.

“Imagine Justice Gabriel Pwamang making such a statement of the past NPP administration today,” the post stated.

Justice Setufe suggested that such remarks would likely provoke a strong response from the NPP and its supporters, who, according to the post, would mobilise public opinion against the judge.

“The whole Ghana would have come to a standstill,” the post added.

The comparison sought to highlight concerns about the consistency of political parties when responding to statements made by members of the judiciary, particularly when those comments appear to support or criticise a particular political administration.

By sharing the post, Cudjoe has brought renewed attention to discussions about judicial independence, political influence and the standards expected of judges when their public remarks touch on politically sensitive matters.

The issue remains significant because statements by serving judges about governments can raise questions about impartiality, public confidence in the judiciary and the constitutional separation of powers. While political parties may welcome judicial commentary that supports their positions, criticism can provoke accusations of bias or political interference.

The post ultimately challenges political actors and their supporters to apply consistent standards when evaluating comments from members of the judiciary, regardless of whether those remarks favour their preferred political party or criticise an administration they support.

https://x.com/gh_first_always/status/2109561172349665529?s=20

Onlineday feedback-opera-news-app@opera.com