Prof Kwesi Aning
Prof Kwesi Aning says Kan-Dapaah's comment does not amount to accusation of the Court
Kan-Dapaah had said Court decisions have dire consequences on the country’s security
Nii Ayikoi Otoo openly disagrees with Kan-Dapaah
Prof. Kwesi Aning, a security analyst, has defended recent comments by Albert Kan-Dapaah, the National Security Minister, in which he is cautioning the judiciary against lopsided judgements.
The statement, according to Aning was cautioning the judiciary over its unanimous decisions and not accusing the institution.
He stressed that the import of the minister's message was to the effect that some rulings by the apex court have some national security implications.
Speaking on Joy FM, Monday, April 11, 2022, Prof. Aning urged the public to take the minister’s caution seriously.
He explained, “I think Mr. Kan-Dapaah’s cautionary note is not accusatory, and therein lies my usage of the word early warning, and I think he uses the word, tilt, in a particular sense.
"So, can there be situations where decisions are made which are perceived to be fair and neutral but still create this sense of it being titled?
"I think these discussions must bring the heavyweights like Kweku Azar who has written extensively about the performance of the apex court, Prof. Raymond Atuguba who has said and stated very clearly about the tilts of the courts, depending on who appointed them and certainly, Mr. Kwesi Prempeh, precisely because what Mr. Kan-Dapaah has said is to say that the dispensation with which decisions are made can create insecurities, and it is that cautionary note that we need to take seriously?” Prof Aning noted.
Albert Kan-Dapaah, speaking at a sensitisation workshop on the national security strategy for judges of the superior courts, warned that the perception that the judiciary is biased has dire consequences on the country’s security.
He said if it is not checked, it will compel the citizenry to take the law into their own hands for personal satisfaction with the bench deemed biased.
“Injustice occasioned as a result of the absence of an effective justice delivery system or delayed justice or biased justice is certainly a threat to national security.
“Indeed, when injustice abounds, particularly in situations where the bench, which is considered the final arbiter of disputes, is deemed biased, citizens tend to take the law into their own hands most times without recourse to the established systems of justice delivery,” he said.
He added, “If the interpretation of the law is tilted in our favour all the time, people will start accusing the judiciary and will not have the confidence that they need.”
Mahama on judges
Former President John Mahama recently said the National Democratic Congress has problems with the judiciary and called on the Chief Justice to institute reforms within the courts.
“We do have problems with the Judiciary, I must say. I think that it is necessary for some internal reforms to take place there. It is necessary for the Chief Justice or whoever is responsible to make some reforms,” Mr Mahama told supporters of the NDC in the United States where he has been visiting.
He added: “Most of the governance institutions have been politicised. I give the example of the Judiciary. It is only in Ghana that a Supreme Court will make a decision that a birth certificate is not proof of citizenship”.
Mr Mahama also referenced a research by his former executive secretary and lawyer Raymond Atuguba who argued that judges, in crucial political cases, rule based on their party lines.
“There are many such funny judgements that have been given. I remember at one time, our colleague Professor Raymond Atuguba said that from research he had done, judges turn to give their judgements in favour of the political party or leader that appointed them.
“He was subjected to such a whirlwind of indignation by the Judiciary, but if you bring it down to what is happening today, and you look at it and see who appointed who, you will find that there was some truth in the research.
“The thing is, our constitution gives the security of tenure to judges. Once you have been appointed, you cannot be removed. That is why we give security of tenure so that you will have the courage no matter who appointed you to give judgement according to your conscience. That is what our judges should do. They must rise to the occasion.”
View his Timepath below;
