Reform with out knowledge is a big gamble – Constitution Review Chair warns towards speeding Supreme Court adjustments – Life Pulse Daily
Editor-in-chiefDecember 28, 20255 Mins read56
Reform Without Data is a Gamble: Constitution Review Chair Warns Against Speeding Supreme Court Changes
Introduction
In the complex landscape of judicial reform, the balance between efficiency and stability is delicate. Recently, the Chairman of the Constitution Review Committee, Professor Henry Kwasi Prempeh, issued a critical cautionary statement regarding proposed changes to Ghana’s judicial structure. Speaking on Joy News, Prof Prempeh emphasized that reforming the Supreme Court without concrete, verifiable data is a “big gamble” that could jeopardize the justice system.
This article explores the Chairman’s arguments for an evidence-based approach to judicial restructuring. We will analyze why statistical data on case overturn rates is essential, the legitimate concerns regarding litigation delays, and the practical implications of altering the appellate structure without a solid foundation of knowledge.
Key Points
- Core Warning: Prof. Henry Kwasi Prempeh argues that judicial reform without statistical backing is a dangerous gamble.
- The Data Gap: There is a critical need to determine the rate at which cases are overturned between the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
- Impact of Delay: While delays in the justice system harm litigants, removing layers of appeal without data could be counterproductive.
- Evidence-Based Policy: Reform decisions must be guided by records held by the courts, not assumptions or political pressure.
- Stakeholder Engagement: The Committee’s proposals are based on extensive consultation with judges across various court levels.
Background
The State of Ghana’s Judiciary
The judicial system in Ghana, like many others, faces the dual challenge of ensuring justice is not only done but seen to be done, while also maintaining efficiency. The Supreme Court stands as the final arbiter of justice, but its docket is often overwhelmed by appeals from lower courts. This has led to a growing conversation about the need to streamline the appellate process to reduce the backlog of cases.
The Constitution Review Process
The Constitution Review Committee is tasked with evaluating the 1992 Constitution to identify gaps and recommend amendments. One of the most contentious areas of discussion has been the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. There is a prevailing sentiment among some stakeholders that the Supreme Court hears too many cases, leading to unnecessary delays. However, the Committee, led by Prof Prempeh, is advocating for a pause to ensure that any structural changes are rooted in reality rather than theory.
Analysis
The Peril of Reforming Without Data
Prof Prempeh’s central thesis is that policy decisions in the justice sector must be data-driven. He explicitly stated, “Reform without knowledge is a big gamble.” The danger lies in assuming that a layer of appeal—specifically the Court of Appeal—is redundant without knowing how it functions.
The Chairman highlighted a specific metric: the rate of overturned cases. If the Supreme Court overturns a high percentage of decisions made by the Court of Appeal, it indicates that the lower appellate court is a necessary filter that corrects errors before they reach the final court. Conversely, if the Supreme Court affirms 90% of Court of Appeal decisions, the intermediate layer might simply be adding delay without adding value.
Without these statistics, removing a tier of the judiciary is purely speculative. It is akin to performing surgery without a diagnosis. If the data reveals that the Court of Appeal is effectively filtering bad judgments, bypassing it could flood the Supreme Court with weak cases, ironically causing even more delays and increasing the likelihood of miscarriages of justice.
The Problem of Litigation Delays
On the other hand, the urgency for reform is valid. Prof Prempeh acknowledged the “official” concerns regarding delays. He noted, “It’s not fair to the litigants for cases to be there for 10 or 20 years.” When justice is delayed for a decade, it is effectively “justice denied.”
The analysis identifies jurisdictional bottlenecks as a primary culprit. Currently, the Supreme Court hears a vast array of cases, creating a massive workload. The intent of reform proponents is to control this volume. However, Prof Prempeh argues that we cannot simply “control the volume” by arbitrarily cutting off access to the Supreme Court or eliminating the Court of Appeal. We must first understand why the volume is high and where the errors are occurring in the judicial chain.
Consultation vs. Data
It is important to note that the Committee’s stance is not based on ignorance. Prof Prempeh revealed that they engaged extensively with the judiciary: “We met the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the district court, the circuit court.” This qualitative data is valuable, but the Chairman insists it must be supplemented by quantitative statistical evidence. The lived experience of judges must be validated by hard numbers on case overturn rates to ensure that reforms are not just anecdotal but structural.
Practical Advice
For Policymakers and Legal Reformers
For those involved in drafting constitutional amendments or judicial policy, the following steps are recommended:
- Establish a Baseline: Before proposing structural changes, mandate a comprehensive audit of case outcomes across all appellate levels.
- Track Key Metrics: Focus on the “Affirmation Rate” vs. the “Reversal Rate.” This data will reveal the effectiveness of the Court of Appeal.
- Phased Implementation: If data suggests a reduction in Supreme Court jurisdiction is necessary, consider a pilot program or a phased approach rather than an immediate overhaul.
For Legal Practitioners
Lawyers and judges can contribute to this reform process by:
- Documenting case timelines and outcomes meticulously to assist in data collection.
- Participating in dialogues that focus on evidence-based arguments rather than purely ideological positions on court structure.
FAQ
Why is data crucial for judicial reform?
Data provides an objective measure of how the court system currently performs. Without it, reforms are based on speculation, which risks dismantling effective checks and balances or creating new inefficiencies.
What did Prof Prempeh say about the Court of Appeal?
He questioned whether the Court of Appeal is merely a delaying layer or a necessary corrective one. He stressed that we need statistics on how often the Supreme Court overturns Court of Appeal rulings to make an informed decision.
Are there legitimate concerns about delays in Ghana’s justice system?
Yes. Prof Prempeh agreed that cases taking 10 to 20 years are unacceptable and that jurisdictional bottlenecks (everything going to the Supreme Court) contribute to this problem.
Has the Constitution Review Committee consulted with judges?
Yes. The Committee held extensive discussions with judges from the Supreme Court down to the District Courts to gather insights on the challenges facing the judiciary.
Conclusion
The debate over reforming Ghana’s Supreme Court highlights a fundamental tension between the need for speed and the need for accuracy. Professor Henry Kwasi Prempeh’s warning serves as a vital reminder that the justice system is a mechanism built on precedent and logic, not conjecture. While the goal of reducing case backlogs and delays is essential, it must not be achieved at the expense of justice itself. By prioritizing the collection and analysis of data regarding case overturn rates, stakeholders can ensure that any future reforms are robust, effective, and truly in the public interest. As the Chairman noted, relying on statistics rather than assumptions is the only way to avoid a gamble with the nation’s justice system.
Sources
- Original Report: Life Pulse Daily (Published: 2025-12-28)
- Interview Source: Joy News interview with Prof. Henry Kwasi Prempeh, Chairman of the Constitution Review Committee.
- Context: Public discourse on the 1992 Constitution of Ghana and judicial reform proposals.
Leave a comment