22/04/2025
A C.J CANNOT SUBMIT NAMES OF PREFERRED JUDGES NAMES TO PRESIDENR FOR APPOINTMENT- PROF AZAR 'STINGS' EMBATTLED CJ, TORKONOO
Kwaku Azar writes:
The die was cast on 2nd July 2024. There is no known precedent—anywhere in the world—of a Chief Justice submitting a list of nominees to a President for appointment to the very court they preside over. This is not merely irregular; it is constitutionally corrosive.
The Supreme Court is meant to operate as a panel of equals, with each justice independently appointed and equally empowered. That balance collapses when new members ascend through the discretionary hand of the Chief Justice. It risks creating a culture of deference, chilling internal debate, and eroding the principle of judicial independence from within.
The signal it sends through the judiciary is devastating: that advancement may depend more on proximity to the Chief Justice than on merit or independence. That message warps incentives at every level and compromises the perception of fairness, which is as vital as fairness itself.
Even more troubling is the institutional predicament it creates. One of the judges named in this irregular process was presiding over one of the country’s most politically charged prosecutions.
Her being named may or may not have affected some of her rulings. But appearances matter. Through no fault of the judge, she was put in a very embarrassing situation.
Justice must not only be done—it must be seen to be done. When process flaws cast even an inadvertent shadow over a judge’s role, the institution bears the cost.
And when the line between judicial neutrality and political entanglement becomes blurred, public trust suffers irreparable harm.
Add to this the selective reconstitution of panels, and it becomes clear that we have crossed the Rubicon.
A foundational norm has been broken. And if it is not confronted and reversed, the damage to our judicial architecture may prove enduring.
Source: page 66 of GOGO’s book on judicial accountability.
Da Yie!