ABSTRACT
This article critically examines President John Mahama’s recent Supreme Court nominations in Ghana, situating the process within the constitutional, political, and public discourse. It analyzes the legal framework governing judicial appointments, emphasizing the critical roles of the Judicial Council and Parliament in ensuring the integrity and competence of nominees.
Drawing on both domestic and comparative perspectives-including the United States Senate confirmation process and India’s collegium system-the article highlights recurring criticisms of superficial vetting, partisan influence, and threats to judicial independence. It further explores calls for reform aimed at fostering greater transparency, merit-based selection, and public trust in the judiciary. Through detailed case studies and academic commentary, the article argues that robust, constitutionally sound appointment processes are essential for upholding the Supreme Court’s role as a guardian of Ghana’s democracy and the rule of law. The analysis concludes with practical recommendations for reform and a reaffirmation of the judiciary’s foundational importance in safeguarding Ghana’s constitutional order.
Read the full article below
When speech turns from critique to contempt, the law steps in – not to silence…
The lesson is as simple as it is exacting. A founder does not lose his…
The best briefs tell a story. They have a beginning, a middle, and an end.…
The last decade has seen the rapid expansion and proliferation of law schools and faculties…
When the “other woman” in a divorce petition is herself a wife, the law confronts…
In Ghana’s Fourth Republic, justice increasingly competes with time. Courtrooms from Accra to Tamale groan…