A prominent academic has raised alarms over Ghana’s method of appointing judges, arguing that political influence in selecting the nation’s Chief Justice threatens judicial independence and meritocracy.
Professor Ransford Gyampo, a governance expert and former university lecturer, criticized constitutional provisions granting the president outsized authority in judicial nominations, warning that the system incentivizes loyalty to political patrons over constitutional principles.
Speaking on the KeyPoints program on April 19, Gyampo highlighted concerns that presidents routinely bypass senior Supreme Court judges to appoint less experienced individuals as Chief Justice a practice he claims erodes objectivity.
“Once you know you’ve benefited from political grace, you tend to dance to the tune of your appointing authority,” he said, referencing internal deference observed among some appointees. Under Ghana’s framework, the president appoints the Chief Justice “in consultation with” judicial councils, a process critics argue lacks transparency and competitive rigor.
Gyampo pointed to the Weberian ideal of merit-based bureaucracy, asserting that Ghana’s current model falls short. “There are many senior judges, yet appointments disregard their experience,” he noted, urging reforms such as competitive examinations, interviews, or even judicial elections to depoliticize selections. Without change, he cautioned, the judiciary risks becoming an extension of executive power, compromising its role as a check on government overreach.
The debate unfolds against a backdrop of global scrutiny over judicial independence in West Africa. Ghana, long praised for its stable democracy, has faced recurring criticism over perceived executive interference in key institutions.
While the 1992 constitution mandates consultation with the Judicial Council during appointments, legal scholars note the president retains final discretionary power a structure paralleled in nations like Nigeria and Kenya, where similar tensions have sparked reform campaigns.
Comparatively, countries such as South Africa and Canada employ independent judicial service commissions to vet candidates, a model advocates say reduces partisan bias. Ghana’s Parliament has previously debated amendments to decentralize appointment authority, though progress remains stalled.
Analysts emphasize that an independent judiciary is critical for upholding rule of law, particularly during electoral disputes or high-profile corruption cases. With Ghana’s Supreme Court poised to adjudicate increasingly complex socio-political issues, Gyampo’s critique underscores a pressing dilemma: how to preserve judicial integrity in a system where selectors and selected are inextricably linked. As calls for institutional modernization grow, the path forward may hinge on balancing constitutional traditions with demands for accountability a challenge shaping democracies worldwide.
