Introduction

Is the foundation of Ghana’s judicial reform built on rock or sand? According to Professor Henry Kwasi Prempeh, the Chairman of the Constitution Review Committee (CRC), relying on assumptions rather than empirical evidence to restructure the judiciary is a dangerous gamble. In a recent interview with Joy News, Prof Prempeh issued a compelling call for data-driven court reforms, arguing that “justice through guesswork is unhealthy.”

The central thesis of his argument is that critical decisions—such as restricting the movement of cases to the Supreme Court—must be backed by transparent statistics. Without hard data regarding the rate of overturned decisions between the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, policy-makers risk either dismantling a necessary appellate layer or perpetuating a system that delays justice for years. This article breaks down the Chairman’s argument, exploring why evidence-based judicial policy is essential for a fair and efficient legal system.

Key Points

Background

To understand the urgency of Professor Prempeh’s statement, one must look at the current state of the Ghanaian judiciary. For decades, the legal community has grappled with the “justice delayed, justice denied” phenomenon. It is not uncommon for civil and criminal cases to linger in the court system for 10, 15, or even 20 years.

The Crisis of Backlog

The Constitution Review Committee was established to examine the 1992 Constitution and propose amendments to strengthen Ghana’s democracy. A significant portion of their mandate involves addressing the inefficiencies in the justice delivery system. As Prof Prempeh noted, “cases were backing up. Too many cases are ageing in the system.”

The Jurisdiction Bottleneck

One of the primary suspects for this backlog is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Currently, a vast array of cases has a pathway to the apex court. While access to the highest court is a fundamental right, the sheer volume creates a bottleneck. The Committee’s initial hypothesis was that by reforming jurisdiction—potentially restricting appeals from the Court of Appeal—they could manage the load on the Supreme Court. However, Prof Prempeh is cautioning that such a move requires rigorous validation before implementation.

Analysis

Professor Prempeh’s critique centers on the concept of institutional validation. He argues that before stripping the Supreme Court of certain appellate jurisdictions, the state must answer a pivotal question: Is the Court of Appeal getting it right?

The “Overturn Rate” Metric

The Chairman highlighted a specific data point that is currently lacking: the statistical rate of overturned cases. He explained, “I would actually hope that we would get to a point where we have data to show the rate of overturned between the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.”

This metric is the litmus test for judicial efficiency:

• High Overturn Rate (e.g., 90%): If the Supreme Court overturns 90% of Court of Appeal decisions, it suggests the Court of Appeal is failing to correct errors effectively. In this scenario, removing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction would be disastrous, as it would leave citizens with a final judgment that is frequently wrong.
• Low Overturn Rate (e.g., 90% Affirmed): If the Supreme Court upholds 90% of Court of Appeal decisions, it suggests the Court of Appeal is highly competent. In this case, the intermediate layer might be redundant, serving only to “delay” justice without adding value.

Evidence vs. Theory

Prof Prempeh emphasized that the Committee is not operating in a vacuum. He stated, “these are things that we came to these decisions from real engagement with the judge.” The CRC has engaged with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, and lower courts. This pedagogical approach—gathering information from the source—ensures that the analysis is grounded in the practical realities of the courtroom, rather than academic theory.

Practical Advice

For legal practitioners, policy-makers, and citizens interested in judicial reform, the following steps are recommended to move from “guesswork” to data-driven governance:

1. Institutionalize Court Data Collection

The judiciary must invest in robust data management systems. Tracking the outcome of every appeal—whether affirmed, varied, or overturned—should be automated. This data must be made public to allow for independent analysis by legal scholars and the media.

2. Define “Efficiency” Holistically

Efficiency is not just about speed (disposition time); it is also about accuracy. When considering jurisdictional reforms, the metric should be a composite of speed and the rate of judicial error. Sacrificing accuracy for speed is a false economy.

3. Phased Implementation of Reforms

As Prof Prempeh suggested, “it’s not one of those decisions… that we should make easily.” Reforms should be piloted. For example, specific categories of civil cases could be restricted from Supreme Court appeal for a trial period, with rigorous monitoring of the impact on litigant satisfaction and error rates.

4. Continuous Judicial Consultation

Reforms imposed without judicial buy-in often fail. The CRC’s model of meeting with judges at all levels—District, Circuit, High, and Apex—should be the standard operating procedure for all future judicial restructuring.

FAQ

Conclusion

The call by Professor Henry Kwasi Prempeh for data-driven court reforms serves as a vital reality check for the legal community in Ghana. As the nation seeks to amend its constitution to improve justice delivery, the temptation to make sweeping changes to reduce the caseload of the Supreme Court must be tempered by rigorous statistical analysis.

The core message is clear: we cannot fix what we do not measure. Whether the data ultimately proves that the Court of Appeal is a necessary bulwark against Supreme Court errors or merely a delay tactic, the answer lies in the numbers. By grounding reforms in evidence rather than guesswork, Ghana can build a judiciary that is not only faster but fundamentally fairer.