If the head is yours, how can the judiciary be independent? Atuguba on the Chief Justice appointment process

Justice William Atuguba, a retired Supreme Court justice, has said that the judiciary cannot become independent unless the president's appointment authority is removed. He said that there are issues with the constitutional clause that gives the president the authority to choose judges.

According to the retired judge, this appointment process allows the president to appoint judges who share his views and are his favorites. The process of selecting judges is hampered by the hepatitis virus. It's progressed to cirrhosis. With the president serving as the appointing authority, why do you wish to create an independent judiciary? Examine the schedule. In particular, he has the authority to designate the head, the Chief Justice. He questioned, "How can you have judicial independence when the head is yours?"

The statement was made by Justice Atuguba during talks on TV3's Key Points news and current affairs show on November 16. The Supreme Court's decision on the Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin's declaration of four seats vacant was the topic of discussion.

Remember how the Supreme Court, in a 5-2 majority ruling on Tuesday, November 12, affirmed Alexander Afenyo-Markin's lawsuit alleging that Speaker Alban Bagbin had misconstrued Article 97 (1)(g)(h) of the 1992 Constitution by declaring four seats vacant? The two justices who dissented believed that the supreme court lacked jurisdiction in this case. Afenyo-Markin's lawsuit resulted in a deadlock in Parliament since the Speaker's decision gave the NDC MPs the majority. Members of Parliament from the New Patriotic Party boycotted House proceedings as a result of this.

In response to the question of why the majority of the judges appointed for this case were younger, Justice Atuguba stated that politics was the primary factor. "If not politics, what justification will you offer for selecting younger judges over more experienced ones for such a historic case?" he claimed. According to the retired judge, five out of the seven Supreme Court justices in the case involving the vacant seats used predictable reasoning.

Despite rulings that indicate otherwise, he clarified, the same five judges agreed to hear the case. He asserts that the Supreme Court ought to resolve issues in which it possesses "original or exclusive jurisdiction, rather than "referenced or concurrent jurisdiction." As a result, they could hardly have accepted jurisdiction and then changed their minds to issue a decision that went against their previous position.

It was anticipated because the same five judges agreed to take jurisdiction. The level of political poisoning has reached its highest point. It is necessary to heal the constitutional virus. Justice Atuguba stated on Key Points on November 16 that "if it continues, we will have rule of politics instead of rule of law." If the "politicization of the judiciary," as Justice Atuguba put it, continues, there would be disastrous repercussions for the nation. According to Justice Atuguba, political factors influenced the reasoning of the five Supreme Court justices who were filling the vacancies.

He asserts that the judges would not have first agreed to take on the case if it weren't for political reasons. Justice Atuguba lamented that although the politicization of the judiciary began some time ago, it has now peaked. "This is just politics at play. "This vice will continue to fester and the constitution will be subverted if we don't arrest it," he cautioned.

The retired judge further described the reasons adduced by the majority of the Supreme Court judges as “Superficial reasoning.”

He added that there is “massive constitutional deterioration” in the system and laid the blame at the doorstep of the mode of appointment of the Chief Justice.