Supreme Court must be concerned with its public image

The crucial role of the judicial arm of government in sustaining any democratic government is well documented, with prominent and globally acclaimed governance and political experts constantly emphasizing how the concept of democracy as a way of ruling people owes its existence to an independent judiciary.

As succinctly captured by the revered British figure, Sir David Lidington: “The rule of law and the independence of the judiciary underpin our democracy and lie at the heart of our way of life. They are the very cornerstone of our freedoms.”

This quote essentially means that for a country to claim to have a thriving democracy, there must be an overwhelming belief that the judiciary, which is the only non-elective arm of government, is independent and does not operate at the whims and caprices of either the legislature or the executive.

The most obvious way the judiciary demonstrates its independence is through the adjudication of cases. The conduct of the judiciary in the execution of its duties must always instill in the populace the conviction that fairness and the rights of people are being safeguarded by the judiciary.

It is for this reason that “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.” In other words, how justice is dispensed is as equally important as the fact that it is done. This is because the manner in which justice is done goes a long way in determining how the public trusts the justice system in the country.

Events in this government, particularly during the second term of the Akufo-Addo administration, have placed the judiciary and its delivery of justice under public scrutiny, with many concerned that the country’s judiciary system, particularly the Supreme Court, is on a path that could be the last straw that breaks the camel’s back relative to the public’s perception of and belief in the country’s democratic institutions.

The recent issue where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plea by some MPs for the stay of the decision by the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, to declare some four seats in the house vacant is one that raised major eyebrows.

While my limited knowledge of the law may not allow me to fully appreciate the details of the case, I was particularly astounded by the alacrity with which the case was dispensed. The lightning speed with which the case moved from being filed to being heard and judgment being delivered within three hours is not just historic but also a subject of concern.

My basic concern here is that there have been multiple cases at the Supreme Court which required expedited hearings to save the country’s image and revenue, but what we all witnessed was the proverbial “the wheels of justice grind slowly.”

A case that easily comes to mind is the Domelevo issue. When Professor Kwaku Asare and some Civil Society Organizations sued the government for what they believed to be an act of illegality committed by the president in his order for Domelevo to proceed on leave, lay Ghanaians were expectant that the Supreme Court was going to rule quickly and allow clarity to prevail.

What happened were incessant delays by the court until Kwaku Azar got fed up and discontinued the case. The CSO, who persisted, got a favorable ruling three years later than necessary. If the court could sit and dispense judgment expeditiously, what stopped it from doing the same in the Domelevo case?

There is the case of Santrokofi, Akpafu, Likpe, and Lolobi (SALL), which has been going on since 2020, and there seems to be no end in sight. The Chief Justice and Supreme Court sat down and allowed a group of people to have no representation in Parliament for close to four years, but the same court cannot stand seeing four constituencies without representation for less than two months? What kind of justice system is this?

In this same country, Honorable Haruna Iddrisu filed a suit at the same Supreme Court challenging the passing of the Electronic Transaction Levy (E-Levy) by Parliament. Two years on, the case is still pending, and I’m sure Honorable Haruna Iddrisu and his MPs have even lost interest.

I don’t want to veer into the realms of conspiracies, but there is a trend here, and it does not bode well for our democracy that our judiciary seems to favor a certain group of people.

Let’s remember that our constitution is what has kept this country together since 1992, and we must do everything possible to protect and strengthen it.