Prof Asare said although he understood the sentiment behind the Chief Justice’s comments, the reference to “the past eight years” carried an unmistakable political meaning in Ghana’s political discourse.
He argued that such language, coming from the head of the Judiciary, could be interpreted as an assessment of one political administration against another and therefore risk undermining public confidence in judicial independence.
The Chief Justice, during a visit to the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF) on Wednesday, September 2, praised the performance of MIIF and other state institutions.
He said some of the developments he had witnessed had left him wondering what Ghana had been doing over the previous eight years.
“I must congratulate you. I mean, you have done marvellously well. See, because sometimes when we hear the things that you have done, the things that some organisations are doing now, we wonder; some of us keep wondering what really we have been doing in the past eight years,” Justice Baffoe-Bonnie said.
He made the comments after visiting the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT), where he said he had also been impressed by what he was told about the institution’s performance.
Comparing the situation to previous plans to dispose of some SSNIT assets, including Labadi Beach Hotel, the Chief Justice said: “If you compare that to the fact that not too long ago, SSNIT was preparing to sell its prized assets like Labadi Beach Hotel, you wonder how Ghana could have sunk so low.”
‘That is territory the head of Judiciary should avoid’
Reacting in a Facebook post on Wednesday, September 2, Prof Asare said he was concerned less about whether the Chief Justice’s observation was right or wrong than about the implications of the language used.
“I understand the sentiment. But I worry about the language,” he wrote.
He said the phrase “the past eight years” had a clear partisan connotation in Ghana’s political environment.
“‘The past eight years’ carries an unmistakable partisan meaning in our political discourse. Coming from the Chief Justice, it can therefore easily be understood, fairly or unfairly, as an assessment of one administration relative to another,” Prof Asare said.
“That is territory the head of the Judiciary should avoid,” he added.
According to him, judges remain citizens with personal views when they assume office, but the judicial robe places a greater obligation on them to exercise restraint in their public pronouncements.
“Judges do not cease to be citizens when they assume office. But the robe necessarily constrains their public speech. This is especially so for the Chief Justice, whose words inevitably carry the institutional weight of the Judiciary,” he said.
‘The obligation is reciprocal’
Prof Asare said the expectation of judicial restraint should complement demands on politicians to respect the independence of the Judiciary.
“We rightly insist that politicians respect judicial independence and stay out of the judicial arena. The obligation is reciprocal,” he said.
“Judges, particularly the Chief Justice, must also exercise the restraint necessary to stay out of the partisan political arena.”
He stressed that his criticism was not based on an assumption about the Chief Justice’s motives or whether his assessment of government performance was accurate.
“The point is not whether the observation is right or wrong. Nor is it about the motives of the speaker. It is about protecting an institution,” he said.
Leave a Comment
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!