The 70-year-old served for five years since taking over from retired Justice Sophia Abena Boafoa Akuffo in 2019.

Earlier this month, President Akufo-Addo informed Parliament of his decision to appoint Justice Gertrude Torkonoo as Chief Justice as Justice Anin’s replacement.

In a letter to Parliament, President Akufo-Addo called for her speedy approval. 

President Akufo-Addo in an earlier letter to the Council of State said Justice Torkonoo’s appointment is to avoid any vacuum that would occur following the retirement of Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah.

Justice Mrs Torkornoo per this nomination, will be vetted by Parliament.

President Nana Akufo-Addo has described outgoing Justice Anin-Yeboah as an exceptional leader of the Judiciary at a farewell dinner organised by the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) in his honour.

The President said the tenure of Chief Justice Anin-Yeboah has seen laudable achievements worth emulating by his successor.

“Chief Justice Anin-Yeboah has been an exceptional leader to the judiciary. He has guarded jealously the judiciary and his conduct has brought honour to the judiciary and to our country. Not only has he continued with the modernisation of activities of the judiciary, but his tenure of office has also seen arguably the largest infrastructural development undertaken in the history of the judiciary,” he said.

Justice Yeboah on his part thanked the President and the Ghana Bar Association for their support.

Background on Chief Justice Anin-Yeboah

Justice Anin Yeboah is the fourth longest-serving Justice of the Supreme Court.

A graduate of the Ghana School of Law in 1981, he was appointed to the Supreme Court by former President John Agyekum Kufuor in June 2008.

Prior to that, he served as a Justice of the High Court from 2002 to 2003 and a Justice of the Court of Appeal from 2003 to 2008.

Apart from being a Supreme Court Justice, Justice Anin Yeboah is also a part-time lecturer in Civil Procedure and the Ghana Legal System at the Ghana School of Law.

Justice Anin Yeboah’s name is also associated with football. In May 2017, he was appointed the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee of the Federation of International Football Associations (FIFA).

He also served as the Chairman of the Appeal Committee of the Ghana Football Association from 2004 to 2008.

The facility, situated in the Regional capital, Nalerigu, is funded by the government through the Ministry of Local Government, Decentralisation and Rural Development in collaboration with the Common Fund Secretariat.

The new court building has been fully fitted with boreholes, solar power, generator sets and other facilities to enhance the delivery of quality justice.

Commissioning the facility, the Chief Justice bemoaned the state of court buildings in the country which he said has continued to adversely affect the effective and timely delivery of justice.

“Over the years, a number of factors have militated against the effective operation of the courts generally and rendered our services to the people of Ghana sometimes ineffective. Key amongst these is the deplorable state of our physical infrastructure from which the justice needs of the people of this country are served.”

According to him, a needs assessment conducted nationwide by the judiciary in 2018-2019 revealed that a significant number of court buildings are unfit for the purpose of court business, a situation the Chief Justice described as worrisome.

Justice Anin Yeboah is, however, satisfied with the efforts and commitment of the government to address the challenge.

“Several meetings with the Ministry of Local Government, Decentralization and Rural Development culminated in a bold declaration by the President two years ago, that government will construct 100 courthouses with bungalows for judges and magistrates across the country. Even though this may have been deemed as over-ambitious, today we have gathered to inaugurate this courthouse.”

On behalf of the Judicial Service, the Chief Justice thanked the President and all stakeholders, including UNICEF for their contributions and attention to the challenges of the judicial system.

The Chief Officer of the United Nations International Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Bhanu Pathak, said the establishment of the court will improve the quality and accuracy of justice delivery for children.

According to the Regional Minister, Yidana Zakaria, the establishment of a circuit court in the Region is long overdue.

“My Lord Chief Justice I must inform you that criminal cases that hitherto would have to be trialled by the High Court in as far as Tamale or Bolgatanga will now be trialled here in Nalerigu.

“Clearly, this will cut down on the transportation cost that security agencies incur in transporting suspects to Tamale and to Bolga for justice administration.”

According to the Association, the CJ is a team player and has always solicited the input of the staff when major decisions are taken.

The award, described as the ‘highest award of JUSAG’, was presented to the CJ by Alex Nartey, the president of JUSAG whose two terms have come to an end.

Justice Jones Dotse, a Justice of the Supreme Court, received the award on behalf of the CJ during the opening ceremony of the 1st Quadrennial Delegates Conference of JUSAG currently ongoing in Ho.

“A special commendation must be given to our Chief Justice, Justice Anin Yeboah for the leadership and team playing spirit,” Alex Nartey stated.

“He has worked so fruitfully with the union by being transparent to us. He always solicits the inputs of the staff when major decisions are being taken.

“This has eradicated the animosity and agitation among the staff. This has earned him the highest award of JUSAG ‘The Most Labour Friendly CJ’,” he noted.

In his first sitting in Parliament for the year 2022, Mr Bagbin showed up draped in a blue kente, with a white short-sleeved shirt, and a matching gold crown, akin to traditional leaders.

The former Nadowli-Kaleo Member of Parliament’s style generated massive reactions from Ghanaians on social media and Dr Apaak did not want to feel left out.

Taking to his Twitter page, he questioned why lawyers and judges still wear gowns and wigs after several years of Independence.

He noted Mr Bagbin has shown the way and that Chief Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah should follow.

Dr Apaak added the outfit is an encouragement for people to wear more Ghanaian clothes to Parliament to project Ghana.

ALSO READ:

• Parliament resumes as Bagbin wows with special outfit

• Check out Otchere-Darko’s reaction to Speaker Bagbin’s new traditional look

He wrote: Folks, the Speaker has shown the way, and has encouraged us to wear more Ghanaian clothes to Parliament: Wear Ghana, Project Ghana. Let the Chief Justice follow.

Why should our Lawyers and Judges continue dressing like British several years after independence? #DropTheWhiteWigs.

Check out the post below:

Folks, the Speaker has shown the way, and has encouraged us to wear more Ghanaian clothes to Parliament: Wear Ghana, Project Ghana. Let the Chief Justice follow. Why should our Lawyers and Judges continue dressing like British several years after independence? #DropTheWhiteWigs. pic.twitter.com/Wn7Udi9XPv

— Dr. Clement Abas Apaak (@DrApaak) January 25, 2022

Kwasi Anin Yeboah explained that he has not been authorised by the General Legal Council (GLC), a body he chairs, to release the said documents.

“I am unfortunately not authorised by the Council to release the requested documents relating to the ongoing investigation. The constituted committee is yet to report to the Council on any progress to date,” he said.

In a letter to the Chief Justice, the MP had indicated it had come to his attention that a fact-finding committee was set up by the (GLC), chaired by the Chief Justice, Kwasi Anin-Yeboah, to investigate the matter.

Admission into the only school running the professional law programme remains a contentious matter as every year, thousands of students fail the entrance examination.

This year, only 790 out of more than 2,000 students who wrote the exam gained admission into the Ghana School of Law.

However, 499 others who had assisted they had passed have since been granted admission following weeks of agitation and legal action.

Mr Dafeamekpor, in the letter to the Council, said some students who took the exam last year and should not have been admitted were, nonetheless, admitted.

ALSO READ:

• We should reconsider how people are enrolled into Law School – UTAG President

• Petition to remove Chief Justice unwarranted and unmeritorious – Akufo-Addo

The MP said he is aware that the outgoing President of the Ghana Bar Association, Anthony Forson Jnr, chaired the committee tasked to investigate the matter.

The committee is said to have queried and received responses from the Acting Director of the school, the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar.

The MP wanted all these documents made available to him, arguing that Ghana’s constitution and the Right to Information law allow him to access these documents.

He wanted these documents made available to him in seven days.

The Chief Justice says he will table the request to the GLC at its next meeting for consideration.

He explains the President is yet to constitute a committee to inquire into a petition seeking the removal of the CJ.

Pressure Group Alliance for Social Equity and Public Accountability (ASEPA) is asking for the removal of the CJ insisting he is not fit to hold office.

The CJ has been in the news in recent weeks following allegations by private legal practitioner Akwasi Afrifa that he had asked for a 5 million dollar bribe to deliver a favourable judgment in a case involving his client.

The CJ has since denied the allegations and asked the Police to probe the matter. ASEPA contends the CJ is unfit to hold office and wants him removed.

Under Article 146(6) of Ghana’s constitution, the President, upon receipt of such a petition, must act in consultation with the Council of State to appoint a committee consisting of two Justices of the Supreme Court and three other persons who are not members of the Council of State, nor Members of Parliament, nor lawyers to inquire into the petition and make a recommendation.

The Supreme Court case of Frank Agyei Twum v Attorney General and Bright Akwetey introduced the additional requirement of a prima facie determination during this consultation.

The Court, speaking through Justice Date-Bah, noted as follows:

“The consultation by the President with the Council of State in respect of the appointment of a Committee to inquire into a petition for the removal of the Chief Justice shall first determine whether the said petition discloses a prima facie case before the Committee is appointed.”

The Secretary to the President wrote to ASEPA indicating that the President has commenced the appropriate processes.

ALSO READ:

• Akufo-Addo reacts to petition on Chief Justice’s removal

• Lawyer who accused Chief Justice of bribery faces 9 professional misconduct charges

Dissatisfied with this, ASEPA wrote back to the Presidency demanding specifics of what stage the process is at.

The group also demanded the suspension of the Chief Justice. Mr Bediatuo has yet again responded to ASEPA.

He explained that it is only when the prima facie determination is made that a committee will be set up to probe the petition.

He, therefore, stated that the call for suspension is premature.

He further raised concerns over what he says is the circulation of correspondence from the Presidency on this matter by the Executive Secretary to the President.

This, he said, is contrary to the rules governing such proceedings which are to be in camera.

I forcefully made the point as follows “His Lordship the Chief Justice must realize that his position is not a private one and he is equally subject to public accountability and criticism.

Questioning the independence of the judiciary is an expression of an opinion which every Ghanaian retains the constitutional right so to do.”

I remarked further that “Justice emanates from the people and dispensed on their behalf by the Judiciary. Contrary to all assumptions that the Judiciary is infallible and beyond public constructive, academic and political criticism, it is rather apodictic that no human institution is inerrable.

The constitutionally empowered citizens and not spectators have an indefeasible right to not only to question any judicial process but also how justice is dispensed.” 

Fortified by the above convictions and given the sensitivity of the allegations of bribery against no mean a person than the Chief Justice, the 4^th man in our governance structure, this surely must not be treated lightly.

All lovers of Justice and anti-corruption crusaders and institutions such as the Office of Special Prosecutor (OSP), Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), Ghana Integrity Initiative (GII), Ghana Bar Association (GBA), the Parliament of Ghana and various Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) as well as the media must be bold to demand full investigation into this bribery allegation to ascertain its veracity.

My interest in this matter stems from the fact that the allegations rather goes to the root of the independence of the judiciary.

Beyond the bribery scandal is the biggest question of whether or not the Supreme Court which is the highest Court of the land and indeed the entire judicial system is free from influences when deciding the rights of parties that appear before it.

Judicial Integrity and Independence Under International Law

The acceptable conduct of the judiciary and judicial officers is underpinned by not only local legislation but also international law. I have reviewed a few standards that should guide our approach in dealing with this matter.

International Standards on Judicial Conduct

At the international level, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are key instruments in safeguarding rights. However, rights cannot be fully protected without the work of Judiciary functioning with integrity.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the principle that everyone is entitled in full equality to fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of rights and obligations of parties before it, as a fundamental one.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also guarantees that all persons shall be equal before the courts, and that in the determination of any rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled, without undue delay, to fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct 2002

The Bangalore Draft Code of Judicial Conduct 2001 was adopted by the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity, as revised at the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices held at the Peace Palace, The Hague between 25^th to 26^th November 2002.

According to The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct 2002, “Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects”.

In the application of the above Principle, it is provided as follows “A judge shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of the judge’s assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding of the law, free of any extraneous influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”

This implies that a judge must not be influenced by any monetary consideration when determining the rights of parties. If that happens it must be a subject of investigation.

Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1985)

These principles were made pursuant to the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to establish circumstances under which justice can be achieved particularly for the protection and enforcement of human rights and fundamental freedoms. 

The ultimate goal was to find ways to guarantee the principles of equality before the law and fair hearing.

The 2^nd Principle under Judicial independence provides as follows: “The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”

Again this principle also reaffirms the position that a judge must not be influenced in anyway when performing his or her judicial function.

General Assembly Resolution on Integrity of the Judicial System

The Human Rights Council in its Twenty-fifth session Agenda on Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, adopted the resolution by the Human Rights Council 25/4 on Integrity of the judicial system stressed that “the integrity of the judicial system, together with its independence and impartiality, is an essential prerequisite for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, for upholding the rule of law and democracy and ensuring that there is no discrimination in the administration of justice.”

Judges Conduct Under the 1992 Constitution of Ghana

The Constitution provides in Article 125 that “Justice emanates from the people and shall be administered in the name of the Republic by the Judiciary which shall be independent and subject only to this Constitution”, and further provides that the citizens would participate in the administration of justice.

In Article 125 (3) it is expressly provided that “the judicial power of Ghana shall be vested in the Judiciary, accordingly, neither the President nor Parliament nor any organ or agency of the President or Parliament shall have or be given final judicial power.”

It cannot be overemphasized that the Judiciary, being the 4^th Organ of State plays a critical role in the governance of the state.

The Constitution goes ahead to again provide in Article 125 (4) that “The Chief Justice shall, subject to this Constitution, be the Head of the Judiciary and shall be responsible for the administration and supervision of the Judiciary.

Code of Conduct for Judges and Magistrates

The Code of Conduct for Judges and Magistrates was adopted to “assist judges in carrying out their onerous responsibilities; support the independence, impartiality and unity of the judiciary, and establish and promote public trust and confidence towards the judiciary.”

RULE 1 of the CODE provides for Upholding the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary.

The provision is as follows “An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society.

A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct, and should personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary is preserved.”

RULE 2 provides for the Avoidance of Impropriety and the Appearance Of Impropriety in all of the Judge’s Activities.

It provides that: “A judge shall respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary” Rule 2 (B) provides that “ a judge shall not allow family, social, political, or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.

A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge…

RULE 7 further provides for Compliance With The Code Of Conduct and provides as follows “Anyone, whether or not a lawyer, who is an officer of the Judicial Service performing judicial functions, including an officer such as a referee in bankruptcy, special master, court commissioner, or magistrate, is a judge for the purpose of this Code” and “where a Judge commits a breach of any rule of this Code, he shall be sanctioned with reference to the gravity of the act or omission constituting the breach in accordance with the Judicial Service Regulations”

Anti-Corruption Action Plan for the Judiciary and Judicial Service (2017 – 2019)

In the introduction to the Anti-corruption plan of the Judiciary, it is remarked “Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies.

It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life, and allows organized crime, terrorism, and other threats to human security to flourish.

It hampers efforts to alleviate poverty, undermines political stability and economic growth and diminishes the country’s attractiveness for investment.’

Given this background, the Judiciary by itself has indicated that they do not treat allegations of corruption lightly.

The Anti-Corruption Action Plan of the Judiciary took into account the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, 2003, the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption, 2003, and the ECOWAS Protocol on the Fight Against Corruption, adopted by Ghana in 2003 as a means of fashioning out ways of eliminating corruption from the Judicial Service.

One of the strategic objectives of the plan is to build public capacity to condemn and fight corruption and make its practice a high-risk, low-gain activity. Indeed to build public confidence means the need to take decisive steps to reassure the public that the Judiciary will do justice to all. 

Analysis of Issues Raised by the Allegation

Issues emanating from the letter of Lawyer Kwasi Afrifa dated 8^th July, 2021 in response to the 1^st March 2021 Complaint of Ogyeadom Obranum Kwesi Atta VI to the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council is as follows:

Brief Facts According to Lawyer Afrifa

In his letter dated 8^th July, he stated “at the end of July 2020 the Petitioner informed me that friends of his who were highly and connected politically had taken him to see the Chief Justice who had agreed to help him win his case on condition that he drops my good self as the Lawyer handling the case for him and engage Akoto Ampaw (Esq) in my stead.

He further informed me that the Chief Justice had demanded a bribe of USD$5,000,000 for a successful outcome to his case and that he had already paid USD$500,000 to the Chief Justice.

He further indicated that he was hard-pressed to raise the remainder of the USD$5,000,000 and so I should refund some of the GH¢300, 000 paid to me as fees because he had in line with the advice of the Chief Justice engaged Akoto Ampaw (Esq) as Solicitor to continue the case before the Supreme Court.”

The above narrative brings to the fore two main issues which are of serious public interest which if true would be one of the biggest judicial scandals in the history of the 4^th Republic. These matters are:

1. That Lawyer Afrifa’s Client told him he was able to negotiate with the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana to accept a USD5,000,000 bribe in order for him to influence the outcome of the case at the apex court out of which he had already paid USD$500,000. This is very ridiculous and cannot be simply swept under the carpets.

2. That the Chief Justice contrary to the Code of Conduct of Judges counselled him to drop his lawyer Kwasi Afrifa and go for Akoto Ampaw (Esq) as condition for a successful outcome of his case.

It must be, however, placed on record that the said Ogyeadom Obranum Kwesi Atta VI on 11^th July 2021 has issued a disclaimer in which he never met the Chief Justice nor ever bribed the Chief Justice.

Chief Justice Must Resign his Position as CJ or step aside as Chairman of the General Legal Council for Justice to Prevail

An allegation of this nature though not a direct allegation deserves all the necessary attention. The President of the Republic would have to pay serious attention to the allegation.

For the public to continue to hold the judiciary and the high office of the Chief Justice in high esteem there is the need for some firm actions.  By the application of law, the Chief Justice is the Chairman of the General Legal Council.

This definitely would create serious doubt if he remains in the position whilst investigations into the allegations are done.

Section 1 of the Legal Professions Act, 1960 (Act 32) provides for the establishment of the General Legal Council and section (2) provides for the constitution of the Council. As set out in the First Schedule to this Act, the Chief Justice is the Chairman of the General Legal Council.

It is trite law that one cannot be a judge in his own course. Being the one whose name has popped up in these proceedings, the Chief Justice must do the needful.

Justice we say must not just be done but must be seen to be done. There is no way the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council will be impartial in their work when the Chairman remains at post. In any event, it is the Chief Justice as Chairman of the General Legal Council that will chair to approve the final decision of the Disciplinary Committee. That being the case, justice and fairness can only be done if the Chief Justice Steps aside.

Even if the allegation is false there must be independent investigation to ascertain the falsity of the allegation. Given the laws cited above, we can only ensure integrity of the judiciary if such allegations are taken seriously and dealt with. We cannot maintain public confidence in the judiciary when such serious allegations are swept under the carpet and no decisive steps taken against them.  

Issues of Lawyer / Client Privileges and Right to Privacy

It is very likely that people may begin to make references to Lawyer/Client privilege information and right to privacy.

It is important to note that the right to privacy is not an absolute one.

Which the disclosure of the said information is necessary for the public interest and for prevention of crime, one cannot hide under right to privacy or privileged information.

Article 18(2) of the Constitution provides as follows: “No person shall be subjected to interference with the privacy of his home, property, correspondence or communication except in accordance with law and as may be necessary in a free and democratic society for public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the protection of the rights or freedoms of others” 

Conclusion & Recommendation

This matter is a serious public interest matter and how we deal with it as a people will set a new standard for dealing with judicial corruption.

If it were any other arm or organ of state, whether Parliament or the Executive, the matter would not die merely because the one who was alleged to have made those statements came to deny them.

What would we expect? The person who is alleged to have made the bribery allegation still has a pending case at the Supreme Court.

The least he can do is to put in a disclaimer as he has done. But for anti-corruption watchers, the media, CSOs, Ghana Bar Association and all who care about the future of our judiciary, this must rather stimulate our curiosity.

The Security agencies with the requisite expertise must be interested in investigating this matter to its logical conclusion. We can only unravel the truth if we investigate the matter.

Article 17 (1) provides that “all persons shall be equal before the law and Article 17(2) provides that “a person shall not be discriminated against on grounds of gender, race, colour, ethnic origin, religion, creed or social or economic status.”

From the above, I respectfully recommend the following:

1. A resignation of the Chief Justice or stepping aside as the Chairman of the General Council.

2. A full-scale investigation by the Office of Special Prosecutor. There must be investigation into the accounts, recent assets acquired by the CJ (if any), and an investigation into all financial transactions by the said Ogyeadom Obranum Kwesi Atta VI and receivables by the Chief Justice in the last one year.

3. EOCO must take steps to investigate potential proceeds of crime that could have been acquired by the Chief Justice.

4. CHRAJ should institute anti-corruption investigation into the activities of the Chief Justice.

5. Judicial Committee of Parliament must open a full-scale public hearing into the matter to bring back public confidence into the judiciary.

6. Police Protection for Lawyer Kwasi Afrifa until the final determination of the matter. This is because, given the nature of the accusation, the witness needs to be protected given the current state of insecurity in the country.

In conclusion, as deputy Ranking Member of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee of Parliament, I wish to call on the President of the Republic, Office of Special Prosecutor and Coalition of CSOs, to officially request the CJ to step aside for an unbiased investigation to be conducted.

****

The writer, Hon. Francis-Xavier Sosu is a private legal practitioner, human rights lawyer, Member of Parliament for Madina Constituency, Member of Appointments Committee and Deputy Ranking Member of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee of Parliament. The writer can be contacted via: francisxavier.sosu@gmail.comwww.madinamp.com

According to him, the Bolgatanga East MP must not see the petition as a condemnation but an avenue for him to come clean and prove his case.

“The complaint doesn’t mean you have been condemned. You just go to GLC and make your arguments and then the matter will be determined. Only when you go there and there is evidence of bias, then he can start complaining.

“But I think that at this stage it is premature. I will advise Ayine to try and go to the Disciplinary Committee and make his case. It is in his interest to go and prove the Chief Justice wrong,” he said on Accra-based Citi FM.

Justice Anin-Yeboah has petitioned the GLC to investigate and apply necessary sanctions against Dr Ayine, over comments he allegedly made against the Supreme Court.

Dr Ayine, during a discussion on Presidential Election Petitions and their impact on Africa’s Democracy, organised by the Centre for Democratic Development, Ghana in May is also said to have questioned the independence of the Judiciary.

A petition the NDC has described as a deliberate intimidation, hence demands an immediate withdrawal.

ALSO READ:

• NDC descends on Chief Justice Anin-Yeboah over Dominic Ayine

• Allotey Jacobs sends strong message to Dominic Ayine, NDC [Listen]

Reacting to this position, the Private Legal Practitioner added: “I am not saying that the Chief Justice is right or wrong. All I am saying is that the Chief Justice made a complaint and as far as I am concerned, he is the right person to make the complaint because the statement was against the judiciary and he is the head of the judiciary so he has to come forward with the complaint.”

Meanwhile, Dr Ayine in an 11-page document responding to the petition said the comment in question was an academic assessment of the specific judges who sat on the 2020 election petition and how they discharged their duties.

He maintained he stands by his comments, adding his comments did not in any way attack the reputation of the judicial service.

Justice Anin-Yeboah has petitioned the GLC to investigate and apply necessary sanctions against Dr Ayine, who is the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bolgatanga over comments he allegedly made against the Supreme Court.

Dr Ayine, who is also a former Deputy Attorney General, is said to have questioned the independence of the Judiciary.

He made the comments in May during a discussion on Presidential Election Petitions and their impact on Africa’s Democracy, organised by the Centre for Democratic Development, Ghana.

But the General Secretary of the NDC, Johnson Asiedu Nketia, addressing a press conference on Monday, accused Justice Anin-Yeboah of intimidation.

To him, the petition is a deliberate attempt to silence the legal brains of the NDC as it follows a similar action against South Dayi MP, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor.

“Even as the action taken against Dr Ayine is unjustified, it is but a symptom of a larger problem. It is no coincidence that virtually all the lawyers who have been reported to the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council by the Chief Justice, Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah, in recent times are aligned to the NDC,” he said.

RELATED: 

• Asiedu Nketia has a message for Chief Justice Anin Yeboah [Video]

• Former Deputy Attorney General in trouble!

General Mosquito, who maintained they stand with Dr Ayine, said that such a treatment would not be meted out to lawyers who are aligned to the New Patriotic Party for reasons best known to the Chief Justice.

“What is the Chief Justice’s personal interest in the punishment of NDC affiliated lawyers that he is so keen to initiate unwarranted actions against them?” he queried.

Monday, 21st June, 2021

Good morning distinguished ladies and gentlemen of the media. We thank you for honoring our invitation at such short notice and we are grateful for your continuous collaboration with us towards building a better Ghana.

The National Democratic Congress has become aware of a petition to the General Legal Council, in which the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana himself, Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah, acting as a Complainant, is seeking to have disciplinary action taken against Hon. Dr. Dominic Ayine, the NDC Member of Parliament for Bolga East who is also Chairman of the Subsidiary Legislation Committee of Parliament.

According to the letter from the Judicial Secretary to the Disciplinary Committee Chairperson of the General Legal Council, statements that Hon. Dr. Dominic Ayine made during a panel discussion on Presidential Election Petitions and their impact on Africa’s Democracy, organized under the auspices of the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD) call for such disciplinary action.

During the panel discussion referred to above, when asked about what he made of the independence of the Judiciary in the wake of decisions in the course of the recent 2020 Election Petition, Dr. Ayine stated his honest, well-reasoned and well-researched views as not only an academic of so many years, but also as a lawyer of high repute, a former Deputy Attorney General, a Member of Parliament and the Chairman of Parliament’s Subsidiary Legislation Committee. It therefore, came as a shock to many in academia, civil society, the legal fraternity and, indeed, to us in the NDC, that the Chief Justice has initiated processes to have Dr. Ayine investigated and disciplined for his comments.

Friends from the media, let me state here and now that the National Democratic Congress stands with Dr. Ayine against what is increasingly becoming a campaign of judicial

tyranny being waged by the Chief Justice of the Republic against lawyers who identify with the NDC. Indeed, the latest persecution of Dr. Ayine is part of a grand agenda by the current Chief Justice to intimidate, cower and muzzle all dissenting voices, particularly those in the NDC, who dare to speak against some of the strange decisions that characterized the 2020 Presidential Election Petition.

As you may be aware, only few months ago, some lawyers with NDC leanings, specifically Lawyer Abraham Amaliba and David Annan, were hauled to the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council by the Chief Justice in similar fashion and harassed for expressing their views on the Constitution of the Supreme Court Panel that heard the 2020 Election Petition. Also, not long ago, the Hon. Rockson-Nelson

K. Etse Dafeamekpor, the NDC member of Parliament for South Dayi, received a similar invitation to appear before the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council.

Ladies and gentlemen of the media, Dr. Ayine spoke at a roundtable discussion which had other lawyers and academics brought together to analyze the impact of Presidential election petitions on our democracy. When the question about confidence in the independence of the judiciary was posed, Lawyer Yaw Oppong, a member of President Akufo-Addo’s legal team, responded that he thought Ghana’s judiciary was independent. Dr. Ayine, on his part, expressed the view that his confidence in the independence of the judiciary had been dampened by the way the court determined some of the interlocutory applications of the Petitioner without due regard for judicial precedent and settled rules and practices.

Ladies and gentlemen of the media, the way in which the Supreme Court, in the hearing of the 2020 Election Petition continuously shielded the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission, Mrs. Jean Adukwei Mensah, from scrutiny and accountability, has been the subject of critical comment by many people. Indeed, much of the criticism has been from people who are in no way associated with the NDC.

We must say we are also struck by how positions that the current Chief Justice took in 2012 Election Petition are completely opposite to his positions in the 2020 Election petition. Let me read you a few sentences from Justice of the Supreme Court (as he then was) Anin-Yeboah when he dissented in respect of a ruling concerning whether the Electoral Commission should be ordered to produce certain documents. He said:

“In a serious matter in which the mandate of the entire voters of this country is being questioned through the judicial process one expected the second respondent as the sole body responsible for the conduct of elections to have exhibited utmost degree of candour to assist the court in arriving at the truth. Surprisingly, the second respondent Electoral Commission opted for filing no pink sheets leaving this court unassisted and thereby placing reliance only on the pink sheets supplied to the agents of the petitioners at the various polling stations in issue. Why the second respondent elected to deny assistance to a court of law in search of the truth in a monumental case of this nature is beyond my comprehension. I think this must be deprecated in view of the constitutional autonomy granted to it to perform such vital functions under the Constitution for the advancement of our democratic governance.”

Yet, in the recent Election Petition, the same Justice Anin Yeboah dismissed every single application on behalf of the Petitioner to have the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission assist the Court to establish the truth! In 2013 Dr. Afari-Djan went into the witness -box and was subjected to extensive cross-examination. That was not enough for Justice Anin-Yeboah then. This time, Mrs. Jean Mensa, having sworn to a witness statement and sworn to affidavits to the effect that she would be available for cross- examination, chose not to testify. Even an attempt to re-open the case of the Petitioner to enable her be subpoenaed was rejected by the Chief Justice and his colleagues. Why was the conduct of Mrs. Jean Mensa not “deprecated”? How does the Chief Justice, Justice Anin-Yeboah, expect Ghanaians to have confidence in his impartiality and fair- mindedness as a judge in the face of these contradictory decisions by him?

Also, the way and manner the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed virtually all the interlocutory applications of the Petitioner without regard for the law in some instances further dampened our hopes in that important arm of government. You may recall for instance, that in their ruling on the application by the Petitioner to re-open his case to call the EC Chairperson as an adverse witness, the Supreme Court disregarded the clear provisions of the Evidence Act of Ghana and opted for a wrong interpretation of the Black Law Dictionary’s definition of Adverse Witness. In that ruling, the Court said that a person cannot be an Adverse Witness until he has already mounted the witness box, despite the clear provisions of the Evidence Act of Ghana which provides that, in a civil action, a party, or a person whose relationship to a party makes the interest of that person

substantially the same as a party, may be called by an adverse party and examined as if on cross-examination at any time during the presentation of evidence by the party calling the witness.

When the Petitioner applied for a review of this decision and the court was presented with an opportunity to correct this clear error of law, the Court refused to do so without any plausible reason. How then can anybody fault Dr. Ayine for saying that his hopes about the independence of the judiciary was dampened by the way and manner the Court failed to apply the law and judicial precedent in dealing with some interlocutory applications of the Petitioner?

Friends from the media, our position on this matter is simple. Dr. Ayine’s views about the independence of the Judiciary are views he is entitled to in line with his freedom of expression guaranteed under the 1992 constitution. He was courteous to the Court and kept his language temperate and decent. He stayed within the bounds of professionalism. He was neither scurrilous nor scandalous. For him to be accused by the Chief Justice of disparaging Ghana’s Judiciary over these tempered and justified comments, is not only bizarre and unfortunate, but speaks volumes about the Chief Justice.

Clearly, the opinion expressed by Dr. Ayine which we in the NDC share without any equivocation, is not actionable and does not violate any rule or Professional conduct rules for lawyers. As a matter of fact, neither Dr. Ayine, nor we in the NDC can be compelled to increase our confidence in the independence of the judiciary even when the Court has not given us any basis or reason to do so. The Chief Justice ought to be reminded that justice emanates from the people and is administered on our behalf. Public confidence in the independence of the judiciary must therefore be earned and not forced on us.

Ladies and gentlemen of the media, we are concerned at the seeming judicial dictatorship that is fast festering under the leadership of the current Chief Justice, an unwelcome development which threatens free speech and could potentially undermine our justice system. You will recall that not so long ago the Chief Justice instructed a Lawyer, Mr. Thaddeus Sory, to issue a threatening letter to media houses in the country ostensibly to restrict public criticism of the Court on grounds that the Ghanaian People are uneducated and uninformed about legal issues. When there was public uproar, it was then claimed

that the letter was not aimed at preventing criticisms of decisions of the Supreme Court in the media.

The Judiciary, like Parliament or the Executive, is not above criticism. Indeed, it is worth recalling that the recent “Re-Akoto” event in Kumasi, where an address was delivered on behalf of the Chief Justice, was an event to criticize a sixty-year-old decision of the Supreme Court. The event was dominated by politicians of the New Patriotic Party stock who used the occasion to express their critical views freely.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we wish to reiterate the fact that the invitation of Dr. Ayine to appear before the General Legal Council is yet another attempt by the Chief Justice to intimidate and suppress views that are at variance with his views. Even if the Chief Justice disagrees with Dr. Ayine’s views or deems same as erroneous, the statements made were decorous expressions of opinion about a judgement delivered by the Supreme Court and do not warrant professional discipline.

Our progressive march as a constitutional democracy will suffer a grave setback if the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council were to proceed to hold an inquiry into this matter of Dr. Ayine’s statements at the CDD event. Our Constitution and laws protect the integrity and independence of the judiciary and not the sensibilities of judges. Judicial vanity is a threat to justice and must not be countenanced in any democracy. We therefore join well-meaning Ghanaians to demand that the Chief Justice withdraws his petition against Dr. Ayine forthwith. We further serve notice that as a political party, we are keenly following events, and shall resist judicial tyranny with all our might.

In conclusion, we wish to state that, even as the action taken against Dr Ayine is unjustified, it is but a symptom of a larger problem. It is no coincidence that virtually all the lawyers who have been reported to the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council by the Chief Justice, Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah, in recent times are aligned to the NDC. What is the Chief Justice’s personal interest in the punishment of NDC affiliated lawyers that he is so keen to initiate unwarranted actions against them? We dare say that such treatment would not be meted out to lawyers who are aligned to the NPP for reasons best known to the Chief Justice.

After the 2013 Election Petition verdict was delivered by the Supreme Court, Lawyer Sam Okudjeto at a Symposium organized by the Danquah Institute took some of the Justices of the Supreme Court to the cleaners and gave his own interpretation of the judgment, contrary to what the Court had determined. Also recently, when the High Court, Human Rights Division, presided over by Justice Gifty Agyei Addo, ruled against the General Legal Council in an application brought by Lawyer Francis Sosu, Lawyer Sam Okudjeto once again went to town attacking and questioning the capacity of the Judge who quashed the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council, of which he is a member.

Lawyer Sam Okudjeto, is also a leading member of the NPP and the Council of State. Why was he not referred to the General Legal Council for disciplinary action by the current Chief Justice, Kwasi Anin-Yeboah? What about the several NPP affiliated lawyers, including a lawyer on record, who made many prejudicial comments and sought to seduce the Supreme Court during the hearing of the 2020 Election Petition?

The respect accorded the Judiciary is one that ought to be earned due to the ability of members of that important arm of government to show equanimity, balance and fairness to all manner of persons irrespective of their political colouration. That respect cannot be rammed down the throat of anyone through acts of suppression and brazen acts of intimidation. The notion that the Judicial arm of government is beyond reproach is but a fantasy which cannot be sustained. The same is utterly inimical to democratic practice and must not be countenanced.

If these actions by the Chief Justice are intended to browbeat the NDC and its members and prevent us from stating our views on the performance of the Judiciary, we hereby state categorically that they will not succeed! We will not be intimidated. We, as a party, will continue to defend the cause of freedom and of right in this country. We did not strive to put in place the building blocks of a sustainable democracy only to allow judicial tyranny to rear its head. And, we will never be intimidated by partisan occupants of state institutions no matter the cost.

God bless our homeland Ghana. Thank you for coming.

According to him, the former Deputy Attorney General did not offend the Chief Justice by stating that he had no faith in the judiciary during the 2020 election petition hearing.

“You earn the faith and belief of the people; you do not force it. What is Dr Ayine going to explain and to who because I don’t even know who is the chairman of the council,” he said.

His comment follows a petition to the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council of Ghana by the Chief Justice.

The CJ had asked that Mr Ayine be investigated and necessary sanctions applied against him over comments he allegedly made against the Supreme Court.

But, speaking on Adom TV’s Badwam, General Mosquito as he is widely known, argued it was a gathering to analyse the judicial system.

“We have realised the Chief Justice is trying to intimidate Dr Ayine but we also want to tell him that you may want to scare a Zongo boy but not with a long beard,” he said.

He noted that the NDC will not take the petition lightly as it will hold a press conference on Tuesday in respect of same.

ALSO READ:

• Former Deputy Attorney General in trouble!

• Otchere-Darko disappointed in Tsikata over Dominic Ayine

Dr Ayine who is also the MP for Bolgatanga East was said to have questioned the independence of the Judiciary.

He was found guilty of contempt during the petition hearing for comments he made at a press brief on February 16, 2021, which suggested that the Supreme Court had a “pre-determined agenda” to rule against the petitioner in the 2020 presidential election petition, former President John Dramani Mahama.

This, he explained, is due to the manner in which the Supreme Court adjudicated the 2020 election petition during a discussion on Presidential Election Petitions and their impact on Africa’s Democracy.

He was hauled before the Apex Court but was later discharged after he apologised for the comments.

Subsequently, he is alleged to have made similar comments during the said discussion.