Legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has voiced concerns over the appointment process of Supreme Court justices in Ghana, accusing both the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) of consistently appointing allies to the judiciary when in power. According to him, this practice results in judicial decisions that mirror the philosophies of the appointing parties, undermining impartiality in the judiciary.
Speaking on TV3’s *Key Points* on November 16, Kpebu urged a critical review of the system for appointing justices to Ghana’s apex court. “Both the NPP and NDC appoint individuals who align with their thoughts and interests. This compromises the independence of the judiciary and shapes rulings based on partisan philosophies rather than strict adherence to the law,” he stated.
Kpebu's remarks were made in response to a recent Supreme Court ruling that declared Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin’s decision to vacate four parliamentary seats unconstitutional. Bagbin’s ruling had followed the filing of nominations by four Members of Parliament (MPs) to contest the 2024 general elections as independent candidates.
The Supreme Court, by a 5-2 majority decision, ruled that a seat in Parliament could only be vacated if an MP switches political parties during the current parliamentary session. The court further clarified that filing to contest as an independent candidate for a future election does not meet the threshold for vacating a seat.
Justice Kwaku Adibu Asiedu, delivering the court’s majority opinion, emphasized that the conditions under Article 97(1)(g) and (h) of the Constitution do not apply to acts intended for future parliamentary sessions. “The condition precedent for vacating a seat must affect the MP’s current status within the present session of Parliament, not actions linked to a future Parliament,” he stated.
The dissenting justices, however, argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction in the matter. This divergence highlighted ongoing debates about judicial interpretations and the influence of partisan appointments on legal outcomes.
The ruling has significant political implications. It reversed Bagbin’s decision, restoring the NDC MPs to their Minority status and potentially resolving the legislative stalemate that had paralyzed parliamentary proceedings.
Kpebu’s critique of the judiciary appointment process comes amid growing concerns about the perceived politicization of Ghana’s judiciary. His call for reform reflects a broader public sentiment advocating for an impartial and independent judiciary capable of upholding the rule of law without political influence.
This debate underscores the need for transparent mechanisms to protect judicial independence, ensuring that Ghana’s judiciary remains a credible arbiter of justice in the democratic process.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0