Judicial Council replies Northern Youth For Justice - (Statement)

JUDICIAL COUNCIL'S RESPONSE TO PETITION BY NORTHERN

YOUTH FOR JUSTICE
On Monday, 4th April, 2011 a group calling itself the Northern Youth for Justice held a demonstration in Accra and presented a petition to the Judiciary. A similar petition was presented to the Attorney General and Parliament.

The contents of the petition as they relate to the Judiciary and comments made during its presentation to the Judiciary by the spokesperson of the group, Mohammed Sulemana, raised some grave issues which the Judicial Council would like to comment upon, as being the body charged with the responsibility, amongst others, of assisting the Chief Justice in the performance of his/her duties with a view to ensuring efficiency and effective administration of Justice.

The Judicial Council having given due consideration to the petition of the Northern Youth for Justice insofar as it relates to the Judiciary would like to respond to the matters raised therein as stated hereunder.

BACKGROUND
On Tuesday, March 29, 2011, a Fast Track High Court presided over by Justice E. K. Ayebi, a Court of Appeal Judge, sitting as an additional High Court Judge gave a ruling in the case of The Republic Vrs Iddrisu Iddi alias Mbadugu and 14 others (popularly known as the Ya Na Case) in which he acquitted and discharged all the 15 accused persons on charges of conspiracy to murder and murder.

There were different reactions from various people in the print and electronic media to the ruling, including comments from Politicians, Lawyers, serial callers, Members of Parliament, etc.

On 3rd April, 2011 an announcement was made in the electronic media that a group known as the Northern Youth for Justice would hold a demonstration in Accra on the issue and present a petition to the Attorney General, Parliament and the Judiciary.

The petition was presented to the Judiciary on 4th April, 2011 at about 12.10 p.m. and was received on behalf of the Judiciary by the Judicial Secretary.

Among other things, the petition called for the following in respect of the Judiciary:“The Judiciary must do an introspection and work hard to gain public confidence that its decisions are not biased and wrongly induced.

There should be a fair and random selection of Judges to sit on all cases rather than the current system where the Chief Justice selects which Judge sits on a case.

There should be a ceiling in the number of Supreme Court Judges at all times.

There should be new enhanced, transparent and predictable criteria for the promotion of Judges so that it does not learn (SIC) itself to political manipulation on the tendency for newly promoted judges to owe gratitude to specific political parties.”

During the submission of the petition to the Judicial Secretary the leader of the group expressed his displeasure with the absence of the Chief Justice. Furthermore he declared that they would come back in another form if justice was denied to the victims. This provoked a question from the Judicial Secretary as to whether he was issuing a threat against the Judiciary.

This outburst was rather strange because in Parliament the petition was received on behalf of the Honourable Speaker by the Deputy Majority Leader and yet there was no complaint. It must be pointed out that the Judicial Service receives petitions from parties to cases in court and it has never been the duty of the Honourable Chief Justice to personally receive such petitions. The petitions are presented to the Chief Justice's secretariat, the Judicial Secretary's secretariat or the offices of the Complaints Unit.

EFFECT OF DEMONSTRATION
The effect of the demonstration, presentation of petition and the related events including the overt and veiled threats issued by the spokesman of the Northern Youth for Justice that

“we will come back if and only if justice is still denied to the victims and we may not know the form in which we will come back, we do not want to travel that path”;

has a tendency to undermine the independence of the Judiciary. Indeed, those events amount to intimidation of the Judiciary. This is a dangerous precedent and a recipe for disaster and destruction of the Judiciary which is the bulwark for justice in the democratic governance in Ghana.

RESPONSE
CALL FOR INTROSPECTION
It is pertinent to point out that the Judges in Ghana are aware that the Judicial Power of Ghana is vested in them, that Justice emanates from the people and that they administer justice in Ghana in the name of the people with complete independence subject only to the Constitution of this Country. The Chief Justice as the Head of the Judiciary is responsible for the administration and supervision of the Judiciary. In the performance of his/her task as Chief Justice the holder of that office is assisted by the Judicial Council, which among other functions, considers and discusses all matters relating to the discharge of the functions of the Judiciary. The Judicial Council meets at least once every month as a whole, and through various Committees of the Council very regularly – sometimes three or four times in one month, or even more as found necessary. This is done with the prime purpose of assisting the Chief Justice in the performance of his/her duties with a view to ensuring efficiency and effective realization of Justice in Ghana. Indeed the appointments and promotions of all Judges are considered and discussed by the Judicial Council and the Council's decision on any particular matter identified before further action is taken thereon.

The Judges do, and are encouraged to, carry out self-examination introspection and criticisms of their work including their decisions whether in the form of Orders, Rulings or Judgments. There is also a Judicial Training Institute in existence which organises various courses for the Judges with a view to ensuring they are up to date with current developments affecting their decision making process and that they carry out introspection and observe proper and independent conduct and carry out their duties to the Nation in accordance with their Judicial Oath. Every Judge in the performance of his/her duties does so without any interference whatsoever from the Executive, the Legislature, the Chief Justice or any other person. Indeed a trial Judge (including a magistrate) in every case gives his/her own decision based on his/her own assessment of the evidence placed before him/her and the Law, entirely without the knowledge of anyone including the Honourable Chief Justice. It is the lawyers and litigants involved in the case who know when the trial Judge is to give his/her decision in any particular case.

Right of Appeal
Needless to say, there is a hierarchy of Courts, and a dissatisfied litigant has the right and can resort to a higher Court within the hierarchy for redress of his grievances as argued to the satisfaction of the appellate Court.

Thus appeals can go all the way from the District Court to the Supreme Court and afford litigants adequate opportunity to seek redress for judgments they may deem wrong, biased or against the law.

In the instant case the Attorney General reserves the right and has indeed exercised the right to appeal against the ruling which is the appropriate course of action.

SELECTION OF JUDGES TO HANDLE CASES BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE

The selection of Judges to handle cases has always been done fairly in the past. This notwithstanding, to do away with the perception that the Chief Justice in performing her administrative duties of assigning cases to Judges wields so much power and exercises undue influence on the Judges, this practice since October, 2010 has been changed.

Currently, cases at the High Courts and Appeal Court are assigned to Judges to handle through an electronic system. The cases are assigned electronically to Judges to sit on and wholly without the knowledge or involvement of the Chief Justice.

In the Lower Courts civil cases are assigned to the Courts by the Registrars whilst in Criminal matters the police prosecutors choose Courts within their jurisdiction. Thus, the Chief Justice has no role at all in the assignment of cases to Judges in the Lower Courts.

CEILING IN THE NUMBER OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

This subject was one of the key issues discussed by the Constitution Review Commission and on which various views have been expressed. The Judicial Council would like the general public and the petitioners to await the recommendations/proposals of the Commission on the matter.

CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION OF JUDGES
There is a set criteria for the promotion and appointment of Judges and Magistrates. From the District Court through the Circuit Court to the High Court the process comprises examinations, assessment of judgments/addresses and interviews to select suitable applicants for promotion and appointment.

There is an Examination Committee chaired by a Supreme Court Judge which together with the Judicial Training Institute conducts the examinations and assesses the written Judgments and addresses.

The candidates who are successful in the exams are then invited for interview which they should pass to qualify for appointment.

The interview is conducted by the Appointments Committee of the Judicial Council and the results forwarded to the Judicial Council for final approval.

At the level of the Court of Appeal the Judicial Council in consultation with the Attorney General invites senior High Court Judges and interested experienced Lawyers to submit judgments/addresses they have submitted in appeals to the Appeal Courts which are then evaluated.

This is followed by an interview of the Judges/Lawyers, by the Appointments Committee and the results forwarded to the Judicial Council for its approval.

A recommendation is then made to His Excellency the President for such qualified applicants to be appointed.

At the Supreme Court level the provision in Art 144(2) of the 1992 Constitution on the appointment of Supreme Court Judges is followed in the appointment of that level of Judges. The article provides as follows “The other Supreme Court Justices shall be appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Judicial Council, in consultation with the Council of State and with the approval of Parliament”.

Judges no matter which Administration appoints them act independently of the appointing authority. They take the judicial oath and undertake to dispense justice without fear or favour, ill will or affection towards any one.

The Judicial Council frowns on the creeping practice of classifying judges or labeling them as belonging to the National Democratic Congress or New Patriotic Party merely because a judge was appointed under the NDC Administration or NPP Administration.

This is a dangerous practice which undermines the independence of the Judiciary and should be stopped forthwith.

As stated by the Association of Magistrates and Judges of Ghana (AMJG) in its press statement issued on 19th August, 2010 when there were similar attacks on the Judiciary arising out of the Judgment in the Ghana at 50 case. “we do not have NDC, NPP, PNC, CPP, GCPP Judges on the Bench. What we have is a Ghanaian Bench whose unalloyed allegiance is to mother Ghana no matter which party is the government of the day” . In fact it is against the code of conduct of Judges for any Judge to be a member of any political party.

DANGEROUS LACK OF CONFIDENCE IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

The Justice system like any institution in Ghana may have its challenges but the Judicial Council does not believe that there is a dangerous lack of confidence in the system.

The ordinary Ghanaian patronises the Courts and trusts it as a place where he/she can access justice. Our Judges are greatly respected by the International Community who read the judgments and are satisfied with the quality and content of the judgments delivered by the courts. These judgments are published in Law Reports available to the whole world.

The Council would wish to advise the Northern Youth for Justice or other such bodies and organizations not to promote or create situations that amount to intimidation or harassment of Judges and thereby make it difficult for them to play their role as envisaged under the Constitution. It is such acts that tend to undermine the Judiciary and Judicial independence and lead to a loss of confidence in the administration of justice by both investors and ordinary citizens.

CONCLUSION
The Judicial Council appreciates the good work that Judges and Magistrates are doing under often very difficult conditions and would like to assure all Judges of its support and co-operation to ensure that justice is dispensed without fear or favour, and in accordance with the Constitution.

The Council recognizes the constitutional right of citizens to criticize decisions of the courts in a structured, sober and constructive manner.

However, the events of 4th April, 2011 and the events soon after the ruling by Justice E. K. Ayebi in the Ya Na case have demonstrated that whilst some of the attacks against the Bench may be mischievous and calculated to serve political ends especially those coming from some Lawyers who should know better, a large number of the criticisms is due to lack of understanding of the work of the Judiciary.

The Council has therefore advised the Judicial Service to embark on an education programme in the nation to acquaint the public with the nature and work of the Judiciary and thereby hopefully help to reduce the misconceptions about this key institution.

This we believe would enable the Judiciary to serve the nation better and as expected of that body under the Constitution.

ISSUED ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
ON THE 21ST DAY APRIL, 2011