Retired Supreme Court Judge, Justice William Atuguba, says President John Mahama should have considered recommending some Supreme Court nominees from the Bar and academia to ensure a more balanced bench.
In an exclusive interview with JoyNews’ Elton Brobbey on The Pulse, Justice Atuguba said while some of Mahama’s appointments were deserving, the composition of the Court would have been stronger and more balanced with a wider range of professional backgrounds.
“Part of the judges appointed by Mahama are deserving, but I won’t absolve them completely either because when it comes to these things, you look at the nature of the court they are going to, the challenges they will face, their background and suitability,” he noted.
He explained that over the years, he had come to appreciate the value of drawing Supreme Court justices from a variety of sources, not just the bench. “I found that with these appointments, particularly to the Supreme Court, some should come from the Bar, very distinguished practitioners who are upright, some should come from academia, and some from the Court of Appeal. Then you have a balance,” he said.
Justice Atuguba pointed out that he himself was appointed to the Supreme Court directly from the Bar, as was former Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo. He argued that this kind of diversity strengthens the Court’s ability to handle its main constitutional responsibilities.
“The Supreme Court is basically a constitutional court. We don’t have it as such formally like South Africa, but the most important part of its jurisdiction is constitutional. They have exclusive authority in the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution,” he stated.
He added that constitutional and administrative law matters, which dominate the Supreme Court’s work, are more theoretical and still evolving in many areas, unlike more straightforward matters like contracts. “So the academics, they are good at that because they are research people,” he said.
Justice Atuguba concluded by saying that he believes the current Court lacks that professional mix. “I find a problem in that you don’t have people from the Bar or academia. I want that Court to be balanced, because it has worked well in the past.
“I don’t know the background of these individuals, but what I want to say is that seniority, when it is bypassed, is wrong. But it is not just raw seniority. Competent seniority, when bypassed, is bad. Not just seniority for seniority’s sake, that doesn’t serve the country well,” he added.
ALSO READ:
