Judicial independence, democratic renewal, and the necessary evil: Ghana’s current crossroads

Democracies do not collapse overnight; they decay gradually, often under the guise of legality and sloganeering under popular leaders. Judicial independence is the lifeblood of any functioning democracy.

Without it, the rule of law collapses into the rule of men, and must be zealously guarded. Judicial independence is vital, but independence without accountability breeds impunity. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor once said, “Judicial independence is not judicial supremacy.”

The current suspension of the Chief Justice must not be mistaken for an assault on judicial independence. It is a painful but necessary intervention to reset the judiciary’s credibility, restore democratic balance, and forestall deeper state capture.

Our Constitution (Article 146) outlines clear mechanisms for suspending and removing judges. These processes were tested before: President Mahama removed CHRAJ Commissioner Loretta Lamptey after allegations of misconduct.

Later, President Akufo-Addo removed Electoral Commission Chair, Charlotte Osei after internal complaints. Though lawful, these removals reveal that constitutional officers could be vulnerable, as Lawyer Samson Ayenini cautioned during Mrs. Osei’s investigation.

Meanwhile, under President Akufo-Addo, worrying signs of soft court-packing emerged:

• Over 14 Supreme Court judges appointed in one term;
• Expansion of lower courts with loyalty concerns;
• Critical rulings favoring the executive;
• Forced retirement of independent watchdogs like Daniel Domelevo.

This pattern reflects how state capture begins: controlling the courts to control democracy itself.

Globally, history warns us. In South Africa, post-apartheid constitutional architects designed a strong Judicial Services Commission to prevent political domination of judicial appointments, precisely to prevent future state capture through the courts.

Similarly, in post-authoritarian Latin America, transitional governments sometimes had to purge compromised judges to rebuild legitimate judicial systems (e.g., Argentina after the Dirty War). In the United States, even attempted court-packing by Franklin D. Roosevelt was met with fierce resistance, preserving judicial independence.

Ghana must learn that no democracy survives without an independent judiciary, and no judiciary survives without accountability. When courts lose independence, elections alone cannot save a republic.

Suspending the Chief Justice, following due process, sends an essential message: no official is above the Constitution. It is not a verdict of guilt but a shield for the investigation’s integrity. Allowing allegations to fester unchecked would poison public trust even further.

The Ghana Bar Association (GBA)’s call to rescind the suspension is understandable and probably necessary, but it misreads the more significant threat: True judicial independence demands both freedom from executive control and freedom from internal corruption.

Shielding judges from scrutiny out of fear of optics would betray the very idea of constitutional governance. Ghana is at a crossroads of reflecting on this profound and honest paradox. Either we defend blind loyalty to influential individuals or fight for loyal service to constitutional principles.

We face a pivotal opportunity to reaffirm that no branch of government, not even the judiciary, is above accountability. Democracy dies when courts serve men, not the law. Temporary pain to the judiciary today is preferable to permanent democratic decay tomorrow.

 

The writer, Dr. Eugene K Dordoye is a Consultant Psychiatrist/Senior Lecturer at University of Health and Allied Sciences, Ho

The post Judicial independence, democratic renewal, and the necessary evil: Ghana’s current crossroads first appeared on 3News.

Read Full Story