Appearing before Parliament’s Appointments Committee on Wednesday, 18 June, for her vetting, Justice Amaleboba emphasised that the effectiveness and credibility of the judiciary—especially at the highest level—depend significantly on the depth of experience judges bring to the bench.

“In the administration of justice, we need qualified and experienced jurists who can adjudicate matters that will stand the test of time and also guide relatively younger judges on how to proceed,” she stated.

She pointed out that the Supreme Court, as both the final appellate and constitutional court, bears significant legal responsibilities that demand sound judgment and well-rounded legal expertise.

“We need experienced jurists at the Supreme Court because that is our final appellate court. It is also our constitutional court and holds several other jurisdictions,” she explained.

Justice Amaleboba further noted that while age should not be the sole criterion, it often reflects the wealth of experience and insight acquired over years of legal practice—qualities essential for upholding judicial integrity and mentoring future judges.

“I believe that age is important because of the experience and qualifications a jurist would have gathered over the years,” she added.

The Koforidua High Court presided over by Justice Emmanuel Senyo Amadehe on Wednesday, February 19, 2025, issued the conviction.

The ruling also resulted in a bench warrant for the MP’s arrest after he allegedly defied an interim injunction preventing his swearing-in on January 7, 2025.

However, Mr. Kumi’s lawyer, Gary Nimako Marfo has argued that Justice Amadehe erred in law by assuming jurisdiction over the Akwatia parliamentary election petition despite the failure of the Electoral Commission’s(EC) to publish a Gazette notification of the results.

The legal team contends that this omission rendered the petition filed on 31st December 2024 legally incompetent, as it failed to properly invoke the High Court’s jurisdiction.

The MP’s lawyers further accuse the judge of bias and violating natural justice principles by proceeding with the contempt hearing, even though a motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction was pending.

They assert that Justice Amadehe unfairly denied Kumi’s legal team a hearing, arguing: “The learned High Court Judge was biased and highly prejudiced against the Applicant when he, among others, refused to grant Counsel for the Applicant audience on the basis that Counsel had not filed ‘Appearance’ in the Contempt application.”

As part of its reliefs, Kumi’s legal team is urging the Supreme Court to declare the entire proceedings void, contending:

“The Petition filed by the 1st Interested Party [Henry Boakye-Yiadom] on 31st December 2024 in the absence of the Gazette Notification is incompetent, and any Order founded on it is void and of no effect.”

Additionally, they seek an order to quash the contempt ruling and bench warrant issued on 19th February 2025.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is yet to schedule a hearing date for the application.

ALSO READ:

• Court convicts disputed Akwatia MP Ernest Yaw Kumi of contempt

• Akwatia MP’s should find a way to pacify the judge if possible – Imoru…

• The judge erred in Akwatia MP’s contempt case conviction – Amoakwa-Boadu

On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal acquitted and discharged Minority Leader Dr Cassiel Ato Forson and Richard Jakpa, the third accused, in the ambulance case. This 2:1 decision overturned a previous trial court order that required Dr Ato Forson and Jakpa to open their defense.

In a statement issued by the Attorney General shortly after the ruling, Godfred Dame indicated that his office “considers the decision of the Court of Appeal to be perverse in the quest for public accountability and the rule of law. The decision clearly is heavily against the weight of the cogent evidence led by the prosecution in substantiation of all the charges against the accused persons at the trial.”

Speaking on the JoyNews AM Show, Mr Tuah-Yeboah said, “Any lawyer, for that matter, every litigant, has the right to criticize a judgment, but not the judge. So, this statement is in relation to the judgment so delivered “.

He said that a lawyer can criticize a judgment, calling it unreasonable, illogical, or perverse, but not criticize the court itself.

The Deputy Attorney General stated that the appeal they intend to seek aims to test whether the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal can withstand legal scrutiny.

“And so, in going to the Supreme Court, we are going to argue legally why we think the judgment cannot be supported having regard to the evidence on record, and if the Supreme Court agrees to that, it would mean that the judgment would be set aside for us to come back to the trial court for the matter to continue.”

Some lawyers have argued that an appeal at the Supreme Court is not likely to be successful.

The National Democratic Congress (NDC) in particular has told the AG that would be disgraced at the Supreme Court it he goes ahead with his appeal.

Anas had filed a certiorari application at the apex court seeking the nullification of a High Court’s decision which dismissed his defamation suit against the Member of Parliament for Assin Central, Kennedy Ohene Agyapong.

The defamation suit was based on public statements made and a broadcast by the MP, accusing Anas of being evil and blackmailing people in the name of investigative journalism.

Anas’ grounds for the certiorari application challenging the judgment were that the trial judge – Justice Eric Baah, a Justice of the Court of Appeal, sitting as a High Court judge, had no jurisdiction to hear the suit and that the judge was also biased towards him.

On February 25 this year, the Supreme Court, in a 3-2 majority decision, dismissed the application and reserved the full reasoning in the judgment, which was later filed at the court’s registry, making it public.

The Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo,  Justices Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu and Samuel Asiedu were on the majority side, while Justices Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu and Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi dissented.

“Investigative terrorism”

In the High Court judgment dated March 15 last year, Justice Baah held that although the words spoken by Mr Agyapong against Anas were capable of defamation, they were factual and therefore, they could not be said to be defamatory as the defence of justification exonerated the MP.

Justice Baah then went ahead to make certain findings based on his analysis of the evidence before him and held that the MP was right in calling Anas “evil, blackmailer, an extortionist, criminal and corrupt.”

Again, the judge in the judgment described the work of Anas as “investigative terrorism” and not “investigative journalism.”

“It should be understood that as officers caught by plaintiff in his investigations have lost their jobs, an entrapped President may be compelled to resign out of shame or public pressure.”

That means the plaintiff, through his investigative antics can cause the removal of a President, and thereby the mandate given to him at the election. This is not investigative journalism.

 It is investigative terrorism. It is an exercise of indirect political power under the cloak of journalism,” Justice Baah held in the judgment.

The above statement by Justice Baah was one of the statements in the judgment, Anas relied on to support his assertion that the judge had a real likelihood of bias towards him.

No bias

However, in dismissing the ground of bias, the Supreme Court, in its decision, authored by Justice Asiedu, held that although the words of Justice Baah may be strong, it was not an indication that he was biased or had a dislike towards Anas.

Rather, the court held that the statement was an analysis of the evidence before the trial court which was the duty of any judge adjudicating over a matter.

According to the court, the statement by Justice Baah was not made in a vacuum, as there was video evidence before the trial court which allegedly showed Anas, one Amakye and a Shiekh plotting to entrap the Prime Minister of Ivory Coast and the President of Ghana.

“Is the applicant (Anas) saying that a trial judge has no right to examine and analyse the evidence placed before him and draw inferences and make findings of fact?

“In my opinion, the statements referred to are the inferences and findings of facts which the learned trial judge dutifully made and for that matter they cannot reasonably be described as constituting bias and be clothed with the garb of prejudice against the applicant,” the apex court held.

Appeal

In a concurring opinion supporting the majority decision, the Chief Justice held that indeed the statements by Justice Baah were his findings and inferences based on his evaluation of the evidence which were placed before him.

According to the Chief Justice, whether or not the evaluation of the evidence by Justice Baah was erroneous, required an evaluation of the evidence again, which was not possible in the instant judicial review application brought by Anas, but rather ought to be done on appeal.

“My conclusion is that the issue of the sustainability of the judge’s words used to describe the applicant can only be a matter determinable by the appellate court.

It is not the place of this court to question the basis for any findings and conclusions that have been reached by a trial judge when the court does not have the full records of proceedings,” Justice Torkornoo held.

Dissenting opinions

Justice Kulendi, in his dissenting opinion, held that the words used by Justice Baah clearly showed that he had a prejudice against Anas.

He wondered why the court, hearing a civil matter of defamation, ended up making criminal findings against Anas.

“I find it even more perplexing that a court exercising civil jurisdiction would find that the applicant is guilty of having taken bribes, and being dishonest, fraudulent, a cheat, an extortionist, a thief, a blackmailer and corrupt,” Justice Kulendi held.

For Justice Amadu, the view by the majority that the remedy for Anas was an appeal and not a judicial review application would diminish the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which had been prescribed by the Constitution.

ALSO READ:

• Demonstration to hit Accra streets over dumsor
• GES reacts to teacher unions’ strike
• Former Chief Justice chairs KNUST governing council

The court also described as unconstitutional the President’s appointment of an Acting Auditor General while there was a substantive Auditor-General as equally unconstitutional.

The Presidency in July 2020 asked the then Auditor General to proceed on leave.

When Mr Domelevo pointed this out as unlawful, his leave was further extended from 123 days to 167 effective July 1, 2020.

Nine civil society groups sued the Attorney General over these directives.

They included the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), Ghana Integrity Initiative, (GII), Citizen Movement Ghana, Africa Center for Energy Policy (ACEP), and Parliamentary Network Africa.

They contended that the directives were unlawful since the President does not have the power to exercise such disciplinary control over independent bodies.

The Court, however, opted not to issue any other orders including stopping Mr Domelevo from proceeding on leave since he has since retired.

ALSO READ:

• Ashanti NPP angry with Napo over his ‘anti-party’ comments
• Apostle Ntumy on why he’s in wheelchair in response to claims that he disobeyed God’s directive
• Former Ghana and Kotoko player passes on