Parliament approves Supreme Court Judges

Accra (Greater Accra) 30 March '99

Parliament Monday approved the nomination of Mr

Justice Josiah Ofori Boateng and Mr Justice John Debra Sapong, as Justices of

the Supreme Court.

While the motion for Mr Justice Ofori-Boateng was by a vote of 95 to 30,

that of Mr Justice Sapong was by 84 to 41.

The nomination of the Appeal Court Justices was however, opposed strongly

by the Minority on account of their ages and ability to deliver.

Their objections were more in respect of Justice Sapong who in their

opinion, "lacks sufficient knowledge to advance the cause of jurisprudence and

would in effect, work for only two months before retiring as the courts will go

on legal vacation soon.

Mr Justice Sapong will be 70 years old in December this year, whiles

Justice Ofori-Boateng is 68 years.old

Article 145 (2) of the 1992 constitution fixes the age of retirement of

judges of the Supreme Court at 70. However, such a judge has six months

extension of duty as may be necessary to enable him to deliver judgement on

cases pending before him

The majority, on the other hand, argued that the two judges having worked

for over 30 years have the expertise to deliver and should not be disqualified

on account of their age.

Mr Ken Dzirasah, Chairman of the Appointments Committee, in his report,

said it was not sufficient to raise the issue of age against the judges, since

the ages of the two were within the constitutional provision.

He said Justice Sapong, as a Ghanaian, is able and willing to render

service to his nation and is not disqualified under the law.

''In the opinion of the Appointments Committee, it will take more than a

compelling argument, than the mere moral admonitions it has received, to

reverse a situation that is clearly constitutionally valid and beneficial to Mr

Justice Sapong''.

Mr Dzirasah cited the case of the appointment of Mr Justice Quashie-Sam in

the Third Republic on 1st October 1980, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, eight

months before he was due for retirement.

After reviewing the objections of the two nominees, the committee by a majority decision has recommended the approval of the nominees.

Reacting to a confidential report by the Ghana Bar Association on the two

judges made available to the House by the Minority Leader, Mr J. H. Mensah, Mr Dzirasah said it

was unfortunate that GBA did not respond to the invitation to give evidence

before the committee during the public hearing.

He appealed to GBA to do so promptly next time. Led by, Minority Leader and Nana Akufo-Addo, Minority Spokesman on legal matters, the opposite side of the House contended that the

appointment of the nominees would not lead to any significant development of the

legal system.

Since, they will be in office for a short time, they will not make any

contributions that will lead to the expansion of the rights and freedoms of the

people as well as the consolidation of democracy.

Mr J H. Mensah said further that there was a need for the people to have

unquestionable confidence in the courts. However, the nomination and appointment

of the nominees would rather go against the image of the judiciary.

''The image and reputation of the Judiciary has a lot to do with the rate

of attracting investors into the country. We need people with a sterling quality

to be on the Supreme Court'', he said.

He said Justice Sapong, in his 30 years as a judge could not remember if

he has ever written any report to the Ghana Law Reports, when he appeared before

the committee

''What contribution can he make to the development of the legal system; he

is not a legal genius. He has not written any report and our objective is not to

enthrone mediocrity on the bench of the Supreme Court'', he added.

Nana Akufo-Addo said the minority's objections are not personal but based

on matters of principle of what they believe would lead to the enhancement of

the legal system and good governance.

Nana Addo expressed dissatisfaction with the way and manner the committee

went about its work without sufficient information to enable members to make

informed judgement on the two nominees.

The appointments of judges should be based on their professional

conduct and not treated like ministerial appointments.

Considering the ages of the nominees, he said, ''it will create the

impression that their appointments are in appreciation to some work they might

have done for the executive in the past.

This perception is not good for the authority of the courts neither is it

good for the development of the legal system and the constitution of the

country.''

Nana Akufo Addo said the precedent cited in the Third Republic is not a

good one because there is no evidence to prove that, Justice Queshie-Sam's

appointment was of any benefit to the legal system and to the state.

Papa Owusu-Ankomah, NPP-Sekondi, said Justice Sapong's failure to mention a

single judgement of his that has been reported in the Law Reports, is an

indictment on him and therefore, would be of no use to the Supreme Court.

The appointment should not be seen as a reward for a job done nor

as a political appointment ''Approval of judges to the Supreme Court should be

on merit and ability, not on long service'', he added.

Dr Kwabena Adjei, Leader of the House, argued that the President makes

nominations in consultation with the Council of State and on the advice of the

Judicial Council.

Both bodies, made up of people with varied and knowledgeable backgrounds

had no objection to the age of the nominees. They should therefore not be

disqualified on account of their ages.

Besides, the constitution, among other things, state that nominees to the

Supreme Court should have high moral character, proven integrity and must work

for at least 15 years as a lawyer.

The nominees satisfy all of the above and should therefore be approved,

he added.

Alhaji Muhammad Mumuni, Minister of Employment and Social Welfare, said it

was unfortunate that in raising objections to Mr Justice Sapong, the minority

failed to acknowledge his ''austere discipline'' which some lawyers found

difficult to cope with, hence their dislike for him as a judge.

When the question was put the vote was carried.