Afenyo-Markin Faces Backlash: Fuseini Condemns ‘Paymasters’ Attack on Ghana Judiciary After Kpandai Ruling

In the heated arena of Ghanaian politics, a recent clash between former MP Inusah Fuseini and Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin has spotlighted tensions over judicial independence. Fuseini’s sharp rebuke of Afenyo-Markin’s public accusation that judges serve political “paymasters” raises critical questions about scandalizing the court and lawyer ethics in election disputes.

Introduction

The controversy erupted following the Tamale High Court’s decision to annul the 2024 parliamentary election results in the Kpandai Constituency, mandating a rerun within 30 days. This ruling prompted Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin to publicly criticize the judiciary, labeling their actions “shameful” and alleging influence from political paymasters. In response, Inusah Fuseini, a former MP for Tamale Central and practicing lawyer, slammed the remarks on JoyNews’ Newsfile program, arguing that Afenyo-Markin had scandalized both himself and the legal profession.

This incident underscores ongoing debates in Ghana about judiciary independence in elections, the boundaries of political speech, and professional conduct for lawyer-politicians. Keywords like “Afenyo-Markin scandal” and “Fuseini paymasters remark” dominate searches as netizens dissect the implications for Ghana’s democracy.

Analysis

Context of the Kpandai Constituency Election Annulment

The Tamale High Court’s November 2024 ruling invalidated the Kpandai parliamentary election due to electoral irregularities, a common outcome in Ghana’s post-election petition process under the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act. Such annulments aim to uphold electoral integrity, with courts ordering reruns to ensure fair representation. Afenyo-Markin’s response on November 26, 2024, to journalists in Parliament framed the decision as politically motivated, warning it could “destroy our peaceful republic.”

Fuseini’s Critique on Newsfile

During the Saturday broadcast of JoyNews’ Newsfile, Fuseini, drawing on his legal expertise, emphasized that Afenyo-Markin, as a called-to-the-bar lawyer, should channel grievances through formal mechanisms. He advocated referral to the General Legal Council (GLC), Ghana’s regulatory body for lawyers, rather than public attacks that amount to scandalizing the judiciary. Fuseini noted, “He has scandalised himself and his profession,” highlighting the ethical breach.

Evidence and Due Process

Fuseini addressed the hypothetical of evidence for judicial corruption, insisting it must be presented to the Judicial Council or Chief Justice’s disciplinary framework. Public allegations without substantiation risk contempt charges, as Ghana’s courts protect their integrity under Article 126 of the 1992 Constitution, which mandates judicial independence.

Summary

In summary, Inusah Fuseini publicly condemned Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s “paymasters” remark as a scandal to the speaker’s legal career and the judiciary’s reputation. Stemming from the Kpandai election annulment, the exchange illustrates frictions in Ghana’s judiciary election disputes. Fuseini urged formal complaints over media sensationalism, reinforcing protocols for handling alleged judicial misconduct.

Key Points

Practical Advice

For Politicians and Lawyers

If facing a perceived unjust judicial decision, especially in election petitions Ghana, follow these steps: First, review the full judgment for appeal grounds under Supreme Court rules. Second, if suspecting misconduct, file a formal complaint with the Judicial Council via the Chief Justice’s office. Third, as a lawyer, adhere to GLC Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit unfounded public attacks on courts (Rule 1). Consult precedents like the 2013 Supreme Court election petition to understand contempt boundaries.

For Citizens Monitoring Elections

Track cases via the Judicial Service website or Electoral Commission updates. Use verified sources to avoid misinformation in Ghana election controversies. Engage constructively by supporting transparent processes rather than partisan rhetoric.

Points of Caution

Avoid unsubstantiated claims against judges, as they constitute contempt under Ghana’s Criminal Offences Act (Section 127), punishable by fines or imprisonment. Politicians risk professional sanctions from the GLC, including disbarment for breaching ethical duties. Public discourse should prioritize evidence-based critique to safeguard democracy. In election annulments like Kpandai, patience with legal timelines prevents escalation into national instability.

Comparison

Vs. Past Ghana Judiciary Controversies

This echoes the 2020 election petition where lawyers faced scrutiny for aggressive rhetoric, but no GLC actions ensued due to formal channels. Unlike Afenyo-Markin’s public blast, former President Mahama’s team pursued appeals quietly. In 2013, Supreme Court judges endured public vilification post-NDC petition, leading to contempt convictions for some critics, highlighting risks of “paymasters” style accusations.

Vs. Regional Trends

In Kenya’s 2022 election, judicial criticism stayed measured post-annulment, averting scandals. Nigeria’s tribunals see similar barbs but with bar association rebukes, akin to Fuseini’s call. Ghana’s case stands out for involving a lawyer-MP, amplifying Minority Leader judiciary criticism stakes.

Legal Implications

Scandalizing the Court in Ghana: Defined as imputing corruption or bias to lower courts without proof, it’s contempt per Re: Tsikata (2005) SC ruling. Afenyo-Markin’s defiance of potential contempt suits tests judicial resolve. For lawyers, GLC Rule 7 mandates respect for courts; violations invite disciplinary hearings, suspension, or striking off. Constitution Article 296 protects judicial independence, making public “paymasters” claims prosecutable. No formal complaints reported yet, but Fuseini’s stance pressures GLC action. Verifiable via Judicial Service reports and GLC statutes.

Conclusion

The Afenyo-Markin-Fuseini clash over the “paymasters” remark illuminates the delicate balance between political accountability and institutional respect in Ghana. Fuseini’s advocacy for due process reinforces the judiciary’s role in democratic stability, particularly amid Kpandai election rerun preparations. As Ghana navigates 2024 election disputes, upholding ethical standards will prevent erosion of public trust. Stakeholders must prioritize formal avenues to model civility, ensuring elections reflect voter will without scandalizing core institutions.

FAQ