Chief Justice’s comparison of Akufo-Addo's govt’s output on SOEs ‘leave much to be desired’ – GBA

The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has raised concerns about comments by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie comparing the performance of selected state institutions under the current administration with their record over the previous 8 years.

The association warned that such public remarks could create the perception that the Judiciary was taking a position aligned with the Executive and risk drawing it into partisan political debates.

The Chief Justice made the comments during visits to the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) and the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF). During the engagements, he commended the institutions’ current performance and questioned aspects of their management over the preceding 8 years.

Speaking at the opening of the Ghana Bar Association Conference, GBA President Efua Ghartey described the remarks as concerning and said they could undermine public confidence in the Judiciary’s neutrality.

“The recent commendation of a public institution and the comparison to a past government’s output by no mean a person than the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana left much to be desired,” she said.

Mrs Ghartey said the comments reflected a wider concern about what she described as subtle and, at times, explicit statements by judicial officers that could suggest an intention to advance the interests of another arm of government, particularly the Executive.

She reaffirmed the Bar’s commitment to defending judicial independence under the 1992 Constitution but stressed that judges and other judicial officers must remain within the boundaries of their constitutional responsibilities.

“The Bar wishes to set a reminder that much as it is poised to protect the independence of the judiciary, as per article 1284 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, the guarded must stay within their bounds as dictated by their calling in the Constitution,” she said.

The GBA President also referred to a Supreme Court case in which Justice Yonny Kulendi addressed the restrictions placed on holders of independent constitutional and statutory offices regarding active participation in partisan politics.

“We note that chiefs are not alone in having their free speech so restricted. Holders of independent institutional or statutory offices, notably judges, members of the Electoral Commission, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, and the National Commission on Civic Education, are by implication from their independent status similarly constrained in their freedom or ability to actively take sides in partisan politics,” she quoted Justice Kulendi as saying.