The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has added its voice to growing concerns over public comments by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie that it says could blur the line between judicial responsibilities and partisan political discourse.
The GBA President, Efua Ghartey, raised the concern at the opening of the Ghana Bar Association Conference, following comments attributed to the Chief Justice during visits to the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) and the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF).
During the visits, the Chief Justice reportedly commended the current operations of the institutions while comparing their performance with that of the previous eight-year administration.
Mrs Ghartey said such comments by the head of the judiciary could undermine public confidence in the neutrality and independence of the judicial arm of government.
“The recent commendation of a public institution and the comparison to a past government’s output by no mean a person than the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana left much to be desired,” she said.
She stressed that while the Bar remained committed to protecting the independence of the judiciary from external interference, judicial officers and other independent constitutional officeholders were also expected to exercise restraint in their public pronouncements.
“The Bar wishes to set a reminder that much as it is poised to protect the independence of the judiciary, as per Article 128(4) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, the guarded must stay within their bounds as dictated by their calling in the Constitution,” Mrs Ghartey said.
She further cited a Supreme Court decision in which Justice Yonny Kulendi highlighted the limitations placed on certain constitutional officeholders in relation to partisan political activity.
Quoting Justice Kulendi, she said: “We note that chiefs are not alone in having their free speech so restricted. Holders of independent institutional or statutory offices, notably judges, members of the Electoral Commission, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, and the National Commission on Civic Education, are by implication from their independent status similarly constrained in their freedom or ability to actively take sides in partisan politics.”
Mrs Ghartey said judicial independence required not only protection from external influence but also careful conduct by judicial officers themselves.
Her comments underscore the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between judicial responsibilities and political discourse, particularly for senior members of the judiciary whose public statements can carry significant institutional weight.
