Reviewing Supreme Court's decision in same case is unnecessary

Read Comments Comments (3)

• Alligator 9 years ago

  I am not a lawyer but I think your argument is solid.
  
  Even though we may not copy USA because it is USA, I think this is an instance to pick good practice from them.
  
  There is no reason why the Supreme Court of Ghana s ...
  read full comment

  I am not a lawyer but I think your argument is solid.
  
  Even though we may not copy USA because it is USA, I think this is an instance to pick good practice from them.
  
  There is no reason why the Supreme Court of Ghana should be made up of 15 justices. I don't even think we have enough clever and experienced people to fill so many seats. A figure of 9 is good or at most 11. All must sit on all cases. This means the court should adjudicate on fewer cases. It should be difficult to bring a case before the court.
  
  But, as you said, the changes will require constitutional amendments. But then, there are so many things wrong with our 1992 Constitution. Let's hope that a new one comes soon.

  reply
• Kwaku Adu 9 years ago

  It is a good submission but on the latest judgement I will be better it reviews itself. A read through the case comes out with the following. It had preconceived mind. It served as the prosecutor. It sat as the jury. And it ...
  read full comment

  It is a good submission but on the latest judgement I will be better it reviews itself. A read through the case comes out with the following. It had preconceived mind. It served as the prosecutor. It sat as the jury. And it became ba judge in its own case. Drew the president into it without offering reasons for that. Latest development in parliament indicates it was selective. It assumed the function of NMC on selective basis instead asking that body to do its works. What happens to the rest of the media. I think the court should correct itself.

  reply
• K.Ameko 9 years ago

  C.I 16. Section 54 (a) and (b) make sense. I think that is what must guide whether to review or not. The court packing by KU4 was a serious stain but must be cast aside.

  C.I 16. Section 54 (a) and (b) make sense. I think that is what must guide whether to review or not. The court packing by KU4 was a serious stain but must be cast aside.

  reply