By William
Yaw Owusu
Monday February
19, 2018
A said controversial
research finding released by former Executive Secretary of ex-President John
Mahama has riled top judges in the country.
Prof. Raymond
Atuguba of the Faculty of Law, University of Ghana, released the findings last
week which indicate that Ghana’s Supreme Court judges decide political cases
taking into consideration the governments that appointed them.
The judges, led by
Chief Justice Sophia A.B. Akuffo, are however, not taking kindly to the outcome
of the research by Prof. Atuguba - who is a nephew of Supreme Court judge
William Atuguba - and have expressed their disapproval in the strongest terms.
Controversial Findings
Prof Atuguba, who
traced the voting patterns of Supreme Court judges from 1993 to 2018, said he
analysed 100 political cases settled by the highest court, saying it revealed that
on matters “where the law is not clear the judges were divided along the
ideologies of the political parties that appointed them.”
According to him, 14
out of 22 National Democratic Congress (NDC) appointees to the Supreme Court had
given judgment in favour of the NDC whilst 13 of the 16 judges appointed by the
New Patriotic Party (NPP) gave judgements in favour of the party.
Judges Wild
Leading the charge,
the Chief Justice said Prof. Atuguba’s work is alien to Ghana and appears to
fault the premise for the whole research.
“It is an American
type of research that you have done...that’s fine, but please be careful what
you are importing into our environment,” she cautioned, adding, “They (Americans)
are used to that, we are not. I don’t think there was a single judge who agreed
with what you were saying.
“Under the
Constitution, a judge will be appointed during somebody’s time...and that
somebody will belong to one party or the other.”
The Chief Justice
confronted Prof. Atuguba during his presentation of the findings at the 2018
GIMPA Law Conference where some superior court judges were in attendance last
Thursday.
She insisted that
matters are decided by the top judges in line with the law and said they are
supposed to be ‘sound and factual.
The CJ cautioned the
law lecturer not to introduce ‘alien practices’ into the Ghanaian setting.
Insulting Findings
A Supreme Court
judge, Justice Jones Victor Dotse, who was present at the presentation of the
research findings, did not hide his disappointment when he said the entire
research is an affront to the judges.
“You are entitled to
your views,” he told Prof. Atugaba, adding, “I think it is an insult of the
highest order.”
Justice Irene
Charity Larbie of the Court of Appeal said Prof. Atuguba’s research is a direct
attack on the integrity of justices of the Supreme Court.
Atuguba Counter-Attack
However, Prof.
Atuguba was adamant, saying he was not the least surprised that there was
negative reaction to his findings.
“Words are just
nothing to me,” he said, adding, "The first time I did a critical analysis
of the police the next morning eight fully armed officers were dispatched by
the IGP to arrest me from my office,” he claimed.
"What should we
do with these analyses? Should we stop doing them, should we have another way
of funneling it to the public, what should we do?" he asked rhetorically.
"I will never
insult anyone, not to talk of the judges, I am engaged in a critical analysis
of our political institutions (and) critical analysis always meets
opposition," he noted.
“It is not a
coincidence that this happened...and it will soon be discovered by the general
populace and it may be too late then to gain public trust and respect for the
court. The time to act is now,” Prof. Atuguba urged.
Public Opinion
Justice Francis
Emile Short, former chairman of the Commission on Human Rights and
Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), asked Prof. Atuguba to publish the research findings,
saying it would elicit constructive critique from the academia.
"Publish it...I
would like to see it," he told Joy
FM on Friday, claiming, “Academic research is useful if we can critique the
methodology."
He said, “It would
be critical to find out how a case was determined as political and how the
researcher reached the conclusion that a judge favoured the appointing
authority. If the conclusions are valid, then there are lessons to be learned.”
Atuguba’s Support
Prof. Stephen Kwaku
Asare aka Kwaku Azar, a United States-based Ghanaian law don who has been
leading a crusade against certain obnoxious public laws, described the judges’
‘negative’ reactions towards the research findings as an attack on academic
freedom.”
He said the research
by Prof. Atuguba only provided ‘empirical data’ to confirm ‘popular perception’
that political appointments of judges have influenced their voting patterns on
political cases.
Prof Asare said on Joy FM that the findings of Prof.
Atuguba did not surprise him, saying, “it is consistent with what people have been
saying."
He said the law is
not "arithmetic where two plus two amounts to four; what Atuguba is saying
is hardly controversial.”
No comments:
Post a Comment