The Supreme Court has done it again, and guess what is within the public domain. This time, there is no prima facie case, as the court is effective at upholding truth, justice, and character redemption. Certainly, it is a human institution that is inherently bound by a range of fallibilities. I am equally aware that the cases brought before the court are distinct, each with its circumstances and dynamics; however, it is the court's responsibility to continually uphold justice and promote freedom, as no other body has this authority under our constitutional rule. The implications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate case, resonating throughout the legal landscape and influencing public perception of the judiciary. As society evolves, the court must adapt, ensuring that its decisions reflect contemporary values while remaining rooted in the principles of fairness and equality.
Sometimes in the past and still today Ghanaians have had serious reservations about the courts. Bizarre or, say, mind-boggling rulings as against the cases brought before them scared many from seeing the courts as avenues for upholding truth, justice, and character redemption. Many spat on the delivery of our justice system and completely lost faith in its services and the mandate of it in our constitutional governance. If anyone thinks the statement is harsh and a denigration of an arm of governance, the Anass Aremeyaw Anas exposé is one groundbreaking undercover piece for anyone to reminisce over about the allusions. Hitherto, this serves to solidify my assertion regarding both the current and past views of the republic's justice delivery system.
A group of people with a common goal and destiny understands that the civilisation they are supposed to be a part of must be responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people, and if this is not the case, the people will be doomed. In a democratic republic, a group of people may rise to power with the ultimate goal of suffocating the breath of the constitution with poor judicial services. We've seen this before, and the unwavering aim of a political group in power was exclusively to suffocate the will of the people through inconceivable court decisions.
The dilemma of Jakpa and Godfred Dame regarding the prosecution of Dr Cassiel Ato Forson's tale of the ambulance purchase fiasco a couple of years ago is one visible illustration of how corrupted our legal system was, and it provides Anass Aremeyaw Anass's exposé of our judicial system with oxygen. It once highlights the urgent need for reform and accountability within our legal framework and this has been clandestine to date. As citizens, we must advocate for a justice system that upholds integrity and fairness, ensuring that the rule of law prevails over political machinations.
Nowadays, the courts appear to be living up to the requirements of the constitution and the expectations of the people, but reservations remain real and far from inconspicuous. This alone provides some comfort under our current regime, led by H.E. John Dramani Mahama, in light of many people's views on the unpleasant court system and its services, which we were faced with as a group of rational thinkers previously. Though many claim that the judiciary is inextricably linked to our governance system, others question whether it is actually carrying out its obligations as outlined in the constitution. Undoubtedly, it is a feather in the NDC party's crown in government, as no head of a government unit has resigned from office like the former CEO of the OSP yet, let alone blaming the president for interference in instances championed as autonomous units.
To cut a long tale short, the two Supreme Court decisions issued today (29 July 2026) precisely convey the demands of the constitution in the eyes of reasonable minds and citizens' expectations. This portends interesting times for this government under the Fourth Republic. Thus, the Supreme Court performed admirably in cases involving political parties' delegate systems being declared unconstitutional and the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) having constitutional authority to initiate trial cases of corruption and corruption-related offences under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959).
In the case of political parties' delegate system, many critics have long argued the imbalance and the sneer it casts over the spirit and letter of the constitution. They have ubiquitously implied that the delegate system nucleates power in the hands of a small group instead of the entire representation of the party and has constantly excluded ordinary party members from participating in selecting candidates. The argument extended to the fact that it encourages vote-buying. This concern raises questions about the legitimacy of the democratic process within these parties, as it appears to undermine the very foundation of representative governance. Critics contend that a more inclusive approach would not only enhance transparency but also restore faith among the electorate in the political system as a whole.
The ingenuity of these three stalwarts, Prof. Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng, Dr. Nyaho Nyaho-Tamakloe, and Dr. Christine Amoako-Nuamah, who took the bull by the horns to cause an upheaval with the current status quo and to rewrite the narrative by leading a legal thrust to compel political parties to respect the constitution, must be praised.And, without a shred of doubt, the delegate system violates constitutional requirements of equality and democratic participation while preposterously denying many members in good standing of a political party an equal opportunity to vote on party candidates. It was time to call a spade a spade and as a civilised society, we can no longer afford to tolerate the incongruity by entrusting authority to a small group of delegates to pick for everyone through representation.
The second leg of the Supreme Court's sitting for the day saw the dismissal of the challenge to the constitutional authority that allows the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) to carry out its statutory responsibilities. In the end, Noah Adamtey, a private legal practitioner, did not lose the challenge; rather, the state won handsomely for our collective interest. There is some incertitude about the impanelled jurors' judgement, despite the fact that Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution, which vests prosecuting responsibility exclusively in the Attorney-General, states unequivocally.
However, the lens accentuates Article 88 and clearly argues that parliament lacked the constitutional authority to create another institution with independent prosecution powers. As a result, the covert or surrupti manner in which Sections of Act 959 granted the OSP the authority to prosecute was inconsistent with the Constitution and should be deemed null and unconstitutional from the get-go. Everything was logically persuasive and best suited to the plaintiff's call.
In contrast, the Supreme Court found that the OSP can pursue criminal matters since its authority is exerted within the Attorney-General's assigned constitutional authorities as outlined in the applicable rules. The latter retains the constitutional authority to terminate (enter a nolle prosequi) any criminal case launched by the OSP. So, the court claimed the spirit of the constitution was invoked using Article 88 of the constitution, which empowers the attorney-general with ultimate prosecutorial authority, but the OSP retains independent prosecutorial powers and is not need to seek leave or 'blessings' from the former.
The incongruity, in my opinion, makes it impossible to support the court's stance, and the attorney general, Dr. Ayini, should be concerned. I have the impression that personal scores are being settled here rather than the law; otherwise, it contradicts logic and plain sense, and if this is true, calamity awaits in our legal system. On any glorious day, I shall call for the removal of the OSP from the operational architecture of our anti-corruption efforts.
More often than not, the delight has come from individuals constantly going to court to settle all kind of disagreements and contentions. That is hope, but jurors are admonished to consider the big picture and posterity. I am not privileged to sit where they do, but I do know that a great deal of wisdom and insight is expressed while passing verdicts in areas where exceptional tranquillity is required to keep the country running. Let's hope so; else, the missing piece of the puzzle is just gone and irretrievable.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!