The Tyranny Of Ghana’s Judiciary

By J. Ato Kobbie, Accra

Nine Judges of the Supreme Court of Ghana, sitting on a case before them on Thursday, May 19th 2011, decided to take the law into their own hands. The Supreme Court, on that fateful May 19th refused to hear Dr. Raymond Atuguba, who was before them, representing one Sumaila Bielbiel, in a political case in which his client is seeking to stop the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Adamu Daramani Sakande, from continuing to be a lawmaker for Ghana on allegations that the MP is a foreigner.

The judges, rather than using their law books, instead resorted to a ‘trade –union’ resolution, as a legal basis to deny hearing a case that they were constitutionally bound to adjudicate on.

Presided over by Justice Stephen Alan Brobbey, the court adjourned sitting indefinitely to await a decision of the General Legal Council (GLC) on a petition by the Association of Magistrates and Judges (AMJG) against four lawyers, including Dr. Raymond Atuguba.

The other members on the panel were justices Julius Ansah, Rose O. Owusu, Jones Mawulom Dotse, Anin Yeboah, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, B.T. Aryeetey, Sulemana A. Gbadegbe and Vida Akoto-Bamfo.

Dr. Raymond Atuguba and two of the four lawyers, Mr. Larry Bimi, Chairman of the National Commission on Civic Education (NCCE), and Abraham Amaliba have been dragged before the General Legal Council by the judges association for suggesting that some members of the judiciary engaged in corrupt practices in the course of duties, at a round-table discussion on the Judiciary and Ghana’s justice system in Accra, organized by the NCCE as part of its annual constitution week.

The fourth lawyer, David Annan, was however at sea, trying to find out why he had been put in the same boat with the three lawyers, since he was nowhere near the NCCE platform where the three made the allegations of corruption in the judiciary.

The AJMG, subsequently, released a communiqué, threatening to recuse themselves from cases involving the four lawyers.

This decision of the group was what the nine Supreme Court judges substituted for the rules that governed their justice adjudication, which include the exercise of discretion in adjourning cases.

The court, without giving any legally tenable reasons for its decision not to hear lawyer Atuguba, adjourned indefinitely the case, pending the decision of the GLC on the petition of AJMG against the four to substantiate the allegations of corruption they had made against the judiciary.

The action of the judges, enforcing the resolution of their ‘trade-union’ even before the petition that has been placed before the GLC could be heard, was obviously a capricious one and suggested that the Supreme Court had prejudged the matter by its refusal to hear one of the lawyers cited.

That action of the Supreme Court not to hear Dr. Atuguba constituted a punishment, to, not only the lawyer, but also his client, and Ghanaians at large, since the particular case in question was one challenging the legitimacy of a lawmaker in Ghana’s Parliament on the basis that he is a foreigner. Worse still, judges themselves have always held that the sins of a lawyer ought not to be visited on the client.

The Supreme Court action amounted to throwing judicial caution to the wind, and clearly constituted a slap in the face of the rule of law.

That action will surely reverberate in judicial circles around the world and further undermine the justice system of the country, deepening the already widely held perception that Ghana’s judiciary ranks high among corrupt institutions in the country.

The AJM had said that “If the critics can justify their assertions or substantiate them, the judges and magistrates involved will be known. Steps will then be taken to have them removed or appropriately sanctioned or prosecuted where necessary. This is the only way we can correct ourselves and bring the bad nuts in our midst to book or weed them out of the Judiciary.”

The GLC that will hear the petition of AJMG is partly composed of judges and therefore it would be interesting to see what their perspective on the matter will be, considering that the Supreme Court has already handed them with what could reasonably be considered an unfair outcome.

This appearance of bias is made worse since the decisio n of the Supreme Court not to hear Dr. Atuguba until the GLC has made a decision on the petition, constitutes a prejudgment of the contents of the petition. What the court did was in effect telling Dr. Atuguba’s client and for that matter all Ghanaians that if they wanted their cases to be heard before any court in Ghana they should not engage any of the four lawyers!

Many research findings published by the Ghana Integrity Initiative (GII), the Ghana chapter of Transparency International (TI) - the global civil society coalition against corruption - have ranked the judiciary in Ghana high on the corruption perception index.

It is therefore surprising that concerns about judicial corruption expressed at a public forum organized by a constitutional body such as the NCCE should receive the angst of judges.

Nobody demands a receipt for bribes paid, nor does a bribe receiver volunteers one. It is therefore certainly going to be a tall order to expect any accuser of bribe-taking to show physical evidence of bribe payment or receipt.

I challenge the Supreme Court to tell Ghanaians why their members who sat on the case on May 19th are not good candidates for impeachment!

This ostrich approach to concerns about judicial corruption is dangerous, and they better wake up!

I believe that the invitation extended to Lawyer Chris Ackumey by the Chief Justice to substantiate a claim he has also made of a judge taking GHC500 bribe, is a better approach to trying to deal with corruption in the judiciary than the seeming arm-twisting approach by the AJMG and Supreme Court. As for the lawyers who have rushed in such situations pretending to be friends and defendants of judges, I want to remind them that if indeed some judges received bribes to influence cases before them as are being alleged, then some lawyers are clearly, potential collaborators in offering such bribes.

I am a journalist. I hear time and again journalists accused of being corrupt and even having blackmailers in the media. I never get agitated by that because apart from knowing that it is a human society that we operate in, I believe in ‘who the cap fits’. j.atokobbie@yahoo.com