Minority’s transfer to halt CJ vetting out of place – Inusah Fuseini – Life Pulse Daily

Introduction

In a contentious political move, the Minority in Ghana’s Parliament attempted to suspend the vetting process for Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, President Akufo-Addo’s nominee to become the next Chief Justice. The motion, spearheaded by some ruling party MPs, aimed to delay the appointment until all pending legal cases against the outgoing Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo, were resolved. However, legal expert and former Tamale Central MP Inusah Fuseini condemned this approach, calling it “constitutionally out of place.” This article dissects the legal and procedural arguments surrounding the dispute, its implications for Ghana’s judiciary, and the broader democratic principles at stake.

Understanding the Constitutional Framework for Judicial Appointments

Ghana’s 1992 Constitution provides a clear roadmap for appointing the Chief Justice. According to Article 144(1), the President nominates a candidate, who must then be approved by Parliament before taking office. This process emphasizes the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, ensuring no single entity monopolizes judicial authority. Fuseini underscores that the Constitution does not permit Parliament to suspend its duty based on extralegal factors, such as ongoing criminal investigations against a sitting judge.

Analysis: Fuseini’s Critique of the Minority’s Motion

The Role of Parliament in Judicial Accountability

Parliament’s constitutional mandate to approve the Chief Justice is singular and final. Fuseini argues that the Minority’s motion risks undermining this principle by introducing external legal disputes—unresolved criminal charges against Torkornoo—as grounds for delaying the appointment. “Parliament is not a court,” Fuseini stated. “The criminal case against Torkornoo must proceed independently through the judicial system, not be weaponized to obstruct constitutional appointments.”

The Separation of Powers in Action

At the heart of this dispute lies Ghana’s separation of powers doctrine. The judiciary operates independently, yet its leadership—like any official—is subject to public accountability. However, as Fuseini notes, the Constitution provides no mechanism to pause parliamentary proceedings due to unresolved legal matters. Article 146 explicitly states that decisions regarding the removal of a Chief Justice are final, precluding appeals. This finality applies equally to the original appointment process.

Theoretical vs. Practical Legislative Authority

Hassan Tampuli, MP and Minority members, defended the motion as a “theoretical” exercise to uphold due process. Legal analysts counter that such arguments conflate procedural idealism with constitutional realities. The motion risks creating a precedent where parliamentary functions are subordinated to judicial proceedings, eroding the separation of powers enshrined in Article 5 of the Constitution.

Summary of Key Legal and Constitutional Issues

The controversy hinges on whether Parliament can adjourn itself based on unresolved criminal allegations against a nominee’s predecessor. Fuseini’s stance aligns with constitutional law, emphasizing that judicial appointments must proceed independently of executive or legislative political maneuvers. Legal scholars argue that delaying the vetting could destabilize Ghana’s courts and set a dangerous precedent for politicizing judicial appointments.

Key Points to Remember

1. Constitutional Duty Over Political Maneuvering

Article 144(1) mandates Parliament to approve the President’s CJ nomination without delay. Any attempt to suspend this process contravenes the Constitution itself.

2. Judicial Independence vs. Legislative Accountability

While the judiciary must remain independent, Parliament retains the constitutional authority to vet nominees. However, this authority cannot be negated by external legal proceedings unrelated to the nominee’s fitness.

3. Precedent Risks in Democratic Governance

Allowing Parliament to delay appointments based on pending cases could politicize the judiciary, eroding public trust in its impartiality and independence.

Practical Advice for Democratic Processes

Ensuring Transparency in Judicial Appointments

To maintain public confidence, judicial appointments should follow strict procedural guidelines, including independent background checks and open parliamentary debates. This ensures accountability while preserving the separation of powers.

Strengthening Judicial Oversight Mechanisms

The Ghanaian judiciary could benefit from an independent oversight body to handle complaints against judges, preventing Parliament or the executive from weaponizing legal disputes against political rivals.

Public Education on Constitutional Rights

Citizens must understand their rights to hold leaders accountable through established constitutional frameworks, not ad hoc parliamentary motions. Civic education initiatives could empower voters to recognize manipulative tactics.

Points of Caution for Lawmakers

Beware of judicial politicization

Using unresolved legal cases to delay appointments risks transforming the judiciary into a political battleground, undermining its legitimacy.

Respect for judicial independence

Parliament must avoid actions that imply judges are subject to legislative or executive control, preserving the judiciary’s role as Ghana’s last resort for justice.

The danger of constitutional erosion

Ignoring constitutional mandates sets a precedent for lawmakers to bypass clear legal frameworks, weakening democratic institutions.

Comparison to International Best Practices

Separation of Powers in the UK and US

In the United Kingdom, judicial appointments are made by an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, shielding the process from partisan politics. Similarly, the U.S. Senate confirms Supreme Court nominees without tying the process to unrelated legal matters.

Lessons for Ghana’s Governance

Ghana could adopt stricter checks and balances, such as an independent review panel, to ensure judicial appointments remain apolitical and transparent.

Legal Implications: What Happens Next?

If the Minority’s motion passes, Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s appointment would be indefinitely stalled, potentially triggering further legal challenges. The Attorney General may seek a review by the Constitutional Council, which has the authority to interpret and enforce constitutional provisions. Additionally, the case could reach Ghana’s Supreme Court, which might rule on whether the motion violates Article 49, which governs parliamentary privileges and responsibilities.

Conclusion

Inusah Fuseini’s criticism highlights a critical moment for Ghana’s democratic governance. Upholding the Constitution’s clear mandates is essential to preserving the independence of the judiciary. As Ghana navigates this constitutional standoff, stakeholders must prioritize integrity over political expediency, ensuring that the rule of law prevails.

FAQ: Your Questions Answered

What constitutional articles are relevant to the appointment of the Chief Justice?

Article 144(1) outlines the nomination and approval process, while Article 146 ensures finality in complaints of misconduct.

Can Parliament delay judicial appointments indefinitely?

No. Parliament’s constitutional duty to approve the President’s nominee is not contingent on unresolved legal matters against sitting judges.

What happens if the Minority’s motion is upheld?

The appointment process would stall, likely leading to a constitutional challenge and judicial intervention to enforce the President’s authority.

How does this case affect public trust in Ghana’s institutions?

It risks eroding confidence by suggesting that judicial appointments can be weaponized for political gains, undermining the rule of law.