News

Sports

Business

Entertainment

GhanaWeb TV

Africa

Opinions

Country

Judicial Service Raps Ministry

Fri, 22 Feb 2002 Source: Chronicle

The Judicial Service has slammed at government and the State Protocol for what it termed constant marginalisation of the service as compared to the legislature and other arms of government.

The service is also angered with the Ministry of Finance (MoF) for not obeying the constitutional provision, which guarantees the independence of the Judiciary in the exercise of its financial administration.

Article 127 (1) of the 1992 Constitution guarantees the independence of the Judiciary in the exercise of its Judicial, administrative and financial administration but according to His Lordship Justice E. K. Wiredu, Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana, the Ministry of Finance has long neglected the constitutional provision that guarantees the independence of their financial administration and constantly impose budgetary ceilings on their demand, a situation, which he said, mitigates against the smooth and early delivery of justice.

The Chief Justice was speaking at a press conference yesterday in Accra, organised to react to complaints by the Minority group in Parliament to the effect that the top hierarchy of the Judiciary met President Kufuor in camera, with allegations that some cases pending before the courts were discussed at the said meeting.

Supporting the complaint of the Chief Justice against the Ministry of Finance, Justice G. K. Acquah, a Supreme Court Judge who was present at the press conference explained that the service is not the least amused with the interference of its financial administration.

He said, for instance, the Ministry of Finance headed by Hon. Yaw Osafo-Maafo has this year pegged their budgetary ceiling at ?43 billion which is almost a quarter of their budgetary demand of ?147 billion.

He bemoaned the budgetary limitation put on them, saying apart from it being an affront to the constitution it also means interference in the work of the Judiciary as well as impeding the efficient and fast delivery of justice.

He said, for instance, that out of the ?43 billion budgetary limitation put on them, ?23 billion is meant for payment of salary for the Judicial Service with only ?20 billion left for other expenses such as renovation of infrastructure and other on-going projects.

"The independence of the Judiciary should be respected", he said, adding that, "service conditions are poor", hence making it impossible to recruit very good lawyers onto the Bench because they find it unattractive.

Commenting on their visit to the President, which has raised furore in the country's political landscape, Miss. Sophiah Akuffo, also a Supreme Court judge explained that they sought audience with the President in order to discuss issues affecting the Judicial Service, on-going reforms as well as to discuss their budgetary demand as indicated in the constitution.

She insisted that the President did not invite them but rather it was they (the Judicial Service) who sought audience with the President.

Quoting Article 179 (3), she said the constitution requires the Chief Justice in consultation with the Judicial Council to submit to the President two months before the end of each financial year:

Estimate of administrative expenses, and Development expenditure of the Judiciary.

Continuing, she said, Article 179 (5) of the constitution provides that these estimates shall be laid before Parliament by the President without revision but with any recommendation that the Government may have.

She added that Article 179 (6) states that the development expenditure when approved shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund.

She, therefore, lamented that from the above provisions, it is clear that the current practice of the Ministry of Finance fixing a ceiling to the Judiciary budgetary demand with the directive that the service should work out its budget within it, is inconsistent with the constitution.

She added that the budgetary ceilings are set without due cognisance of the conditions of service of superior court judges.

Source: Chronicle