Why Deputy AG Justice Srem-Sai is true to withstand the judicialisation of govt discretion – Life Pulse Daily

Introduction

In Ghana’s evolving constitutional landscape, the boundaries between the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary are constantly being tested. A recent critique by Akaneweo Kabiru Abdul has reignited debate over the role of the Executive in matters concerning judicial accountability. At the heart of this discourse stands Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem-Sai, whose position has been both defended and challenged. This article explores why Justice Srem-Sai’s stance is not only constitutionally sound but essential to preserving the delicate balance of power in the Republic of Ghana.

Key Points

Background

Constitutional Context

Ghana’s 1992 Constitution establishes a clear separation of powers among the three arms of government. Article 146 specifically outlines the procedure for the removal of the Chief Justice and other justices of the superior courts. This provision is designed to protect judicial independence while ensuring accountability.

The Controversy

Akaneweo Kabiru Abdul’s critique suggests that the Executive should provide detailed, public justifications for initiating proceedings against the Chief Justice. This perspective, while advocating for transparency, risks transforming the Presidency into a “super-court” and undermines the constitutional design.

Justice Srem-Sai’s Position

Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem-Sai argues for a more restrained approach, emphasizing that the Executive should not prejudge matters that are properly the domain of the Article 146(4) Committee. His position is rooted in the principle that the Executive acts as a sentinel of state stability, not a robed clerk.

Analysis

The Dangers of Over-Judicialisation

The call for the Executive to act like a Court is a dangerous proposition that threatens to paralyze the Presidency and compromise the Judiciary. When the Executive is required to provide detailed legal opinions at the threshold, it risks prejudging the Chief Justice before the proper inquiry has begun. This approach undermines the very purpose of the Article 146(4) Committee, which is designed to conduct a fair and impartial investigation.

The “Shield of Silence” Concept

Justice Srem-Sai’s refusal to demand a detailed public justification is not an act of opacity but of constitutional chivalry. By maintaining a “Shield of Silence,” the Executive protects the dignity of the Chief Justice until a proper, private inquiry can be conducted. This approach ensures that the process remains fair and that the Chief Justice is not prejudged by public opinion or political pressure.

Functional Transparency vs. Public Disclosure

The distinction between transparency and public disclosure is crucial. Justice Srem-Sai advocates for a “Summary of Satisfaction” rather than a detailed legal dissertation. This approach provides enough information to demonstrate that the Executive has applied its mind to serious allegations without revealing granular evidence that belongs solely to the inquiry committee. This balance ensures accountability without prejudice.

The Role of the Council of State

The Constitution specifically designates the Council of State as a “Political Buffer” in such matters. This body is intended to sift through frivolous complaints and ensure that only serious allegations proceed to the inquiry stage. By insisting on detailed public explanations at the initial stage, critics risk bypassing this important constitutional safeguard.

Protecting Judicial Independence

Judicial independence is not merely the absence of interference; it is the presence of a functional system that allows the Judiciary to operate without fear or favor. Justice Srem-Sai’s position recognizes that the Executive must have the authority to initiate proceedings without first rendering a judgment that would compromise the impartiality of the subsequent inquiry.

Practical Advice

For Legal Practitioners

Legal professionals should understand that the constitutional design is intentional and that each arm of government has a specific role to play. The Executive’s role in initiating proceedings against judicial officers is not a power to be exercised lightly, but it is also not a power that should be constrained by the requirement to act as a court of first instance.

For Policymakers

Policymakers should focus on strengthening the mechanisms for judicial accountability without compromising the independence of the Judiciary. This includes ensuring that the Article 146(4) Committee is properly constituted and has the resources necessary to conduct thorough and impartial investigations.

For the Public

The public should recognize that transparency does not always mean public disclosure. In matters involving the removal of judicial officers, the process must be fair and impartial. The Executive’s role is to ensure that serious allegations are properly investigated, not to prejudge the outcome of those investigations.

FAQ

Conclusion

Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem-Sai’s position on the judicialisation of government discretion is not only constitutionally sound but essential to preserving the delicate balance of power in the Republic of Ghana. His approach recognizes that the Executive must have the authority to initiate proceedings against judicial officers without first rendering a judgment that would compromise the impartiality of the subsequent inquiry.

The call for the Executive to act like a Court is a dangerous proposition that threatens to paralyze the Presidency and compromise the Judiciary. Justice Srem-Sai’s advocacy for a “Shield of Silence” and functional transparency ensures that the process remains fair and that judicial officers are not prejudged by public opinion or political pressure.

As Ghana continues to strengthen its democratic institutions, it is essential to recognize that the constitutional design is intentional and that each arm of government has a specific role to play. The Executive’s role in initiating proceedings against judicial officers is not a power to be exercised lightly, but it is also not a power that should be constrained by the requirement to act as a court of first instance.

Justice Srem-Sai’s clear-eyed defense of the constitutional order is a reminder that restrained discretion is the highest form of responsibility. It is time to stop asking the President to be a Judge and start allowing him to be the President. The Republic, and the Deputy Attorney-General’s defense of it, demands no less.

Sources

• The Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992
• Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution
• Commentary by Akaneweo Kabiru Abdul
• Public statements by Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem-Sai
• Legal analysis on judicial independence and executive discretion