Investigative journalist Manasseh Azure Awuni has taken to social media to voice strong criticism against Ghana’s Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo, following the Supreme Court’s recent decision on four vacant parliamentary seats. This ruling, which addressed the status of seats declared vacant by Speaker Alban Bagbin, has stirred considerable public reaction, and Manasseh’s comments have ignited fresh discussions on the judiciary’s role and independence in Ghana.
The Supreme Court’s decision was the result of a suit brought forth by the New Patriotic Party (NPP), challenging Speaker Bagbin’s declaration that the seats in Fomena, Suhum, Amenfi Central, and Agona West constituencies were vacant. Speaker Bagbin’s decision was prompted by the MPs' announcements of their intent to contest as independents in the upcoming elections. However, the Court’s majority ruling sided with the NPP, stating that Bagbin’s declaration of the vacancies was invalid.
Reacting to the ruling, Manasseh Azure published a pointed critique of the judiciary’s handling of this case, taking particular aim at the Chief Justice’s leadership. In his post, he questioned the consistency of the Supreme Court’s priorities, pointing out what he views as double standards in its approach to cases with political implications. He expressed concern that while the judiciary acted swiftly on the NPP’s case, it had delayed or overlooked other cases of significant national interest.
One example cited by Manasseh was the delay in reviewing a bill passed by Parliament in February, which has not yet been signed by the President. According to Manasseh, this delay reflects an inconsistency in the judiciary’s willingness to address certain issues with urgency. He noted that the quick resolution of the parliamentary seats case for the NPP, compared with the judiciary’s inaction on other important matters, raises questions about the institution's objectivity and priorities.
Manasseh’s critique goes beyond just this particular case; he suggests that the Ghanaian justice system is plagued by underlying issues of inconsistency and selective prioritization. He highlighted what he perceives as a systemic problem in Ghana’s judiciary, arguing that the institution's approach to different cases demonstrates a pattern of double standards. In Manasseh’s view, the apparent willingness to expedite certain politically charged cases, while neglecting others, reveals an imbalance that undermines the integrity of the judicial system.
The journalist went further to criticize the Chief Justice’s recent description of the temporary suspension of parliamentary activities as a “constitutional crisis.” Manasseh pointed out that other, perhaps more pressing issues within Ghana’s governance structures have gone unaddressed, with the judiciary appearing indifferent. He argued that Ghana faces a more severe crisis within its justice system than in its political sphere, as evidenced by what he sees as selective judicial intervention in politically sensitive matters.
Manasseh Azure’s post has sparked a wider debate about the judiciary's independence, with many citizens expressing similar concerns about the potential influence of politics on judicial decisions. Several Ghanaians on social media and political commentators have joined the conversation, calling for more transparency and consistency within the judiciary. There is a growing sense among the public that judicial rulings should reflect impartiality and adherence to the rule of law rather than favor particular political groups or interests.
Critics of the Supreme Court’s recent decision argue that prioritizing cases connected to the ruling political party—while delaying action on other equally significant matters—creates an impression of bias. Many worry that the judiciary’s perceived alignment with political interests could erode public trust in the justice system, a pillar essential to Ghana’s democracy.
Manasseh’s critique reflects a broader call for reform in Ghana’s judiciary. Many citizens and civil society groups are now urging Chief Justice Torkornoo and her colleagues to ensure a more balanced approach to handling cases, especially those with national implications. They argue that consistency and fairness are vital for maintaining public trust in judicial institutions, as these values are the foundation of a fair and functional democracy. As calls for accountability intensify, the spotlight remains on the judiciary, with the hope that the institution will address these concerns and restore its image as an impartial arbiter of justice.
The NPP’s case and its prompt resolution highlight the judiciary’s influence on Ghana’s political landscape, especially as elections approach. With the country’s political climate already tense, the perception that judicial decisions are swayed by political considerations could deepen divisions and fuel further distrust between citizens and government institutions. The public scrutiny surrounding this case suggests a need for the judiciary to examine its role in maintaining democratic integrity.
Manasseh Azure’s critique underscores a significant moment in Ghana’s democracy, as it forces a national conversation on the role and accountability of the judiciary. For many Ghanaians, the independence of the justice system is a critical issue that transcends party lines. They view the judiciary as a central institution tasked with upholding the principles of fairness, justice, and equality before the law. Consequently, any perception of partisanship within the judiciary threatens these democratic values and could have long-lasting implications for Ghana’s democratic stability.
As Ghana faces multiple governance challenges, citizens are increasingly calling for institutional reforms that will strengthen the independence of the judiciary and ensure that it serves the people rather than political interests. Manasseh Azure’s remarks reflect a widespread sentiment that Ghana's justice system should focus on equitable treatment of cases, regardless of political affiliations or pressures. Many believe that transparency and consistent application of the law are essential to building a resilient democracy that serves all Ghanaians.
In the days to come, many Ghanaians will be closely watching how the judiciary responds to this wave of criticism. For some, the Supreme Court’s actions regarding the vacant parliamentary seats may signify a concerning trend, while others remain hopeful that the institution will reaffirm its commitment to justice and impartiality. This case may ultimately serve as a pivotal point for Ghana’s judicial system, setting a precedent for how similar cases are approached in the future and influencing public perception of the judiciary's role in safeguarding democracy.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0