Retired Supreme Court Justice William Atuguba has acknowledged that former President John Dramani Mahama’s concerns about the perceived political influence within the judiciary are valid in a general sense.
In September of this year, Mahama voiced his criticism of the judiciary during the New Patriotic Party’s administration, alleging that the courts had been filled with judges favoring the NPP to sway decisions in their favor.
He went on to encourage NDC lawyers to prepare themselves to assume positions on the bench with the aim of creating a more balanced composition.
Addressing the comments on JoyNews’ Upfront programme, Justice William Atuguba said, “I think in a broad sense, yes. The courts belong to the public, and that thing should never be lost sight of.
“Everything in the state belongs to the people. Every other person in any position is a trustee for the people, and that’s why court proceedings are held in public for the public to follow the proceedings to assess things for themselves to see how justice is administered, whether it’s fair or not.”
Justice Atuguba stressed the importance of not ignoring public perceptions and apprehensions regarding the judiciary’s credibility.
He highlighted the substantial public discontent regarding the composition of the Supreme Court, with many perceiving it as having political inclinations favoring the NPP. This perception has grown to the extent that the court has been disparagingly dubbed “Unanimous FC.”
The former senior member of the apex court criticized the prevalent practice in Ghana where critical issues are often pushed aside. He pointed to past public concerns about judicial corruption that came to light before investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas exposed instances of corrupt judges.
However, he does not concur with Mahama’s suggestion of achieving a fair balance of appointments based on partisan affiliations on the bench.
He emphasized that this approach would not be beneficial and that the primary focus should be on guaranteeing fair and impartial judgments, rather than engaging in political maneuvering.