MONDAY ESSAY: Lawyers As Critics, Judges As Targets: Reflections On Judicial Criticism And Resilience In The New Year

Introduction

I was a judge for 26 years. Every morning when I entered my court I knew that whoever else might be on trial, I was too. Neither I nor any other judge would make any complaint about this.

Arguably, the year 2025 has seen judges at the center of public scrutiny, especially from lawyers and the bar in general. Judges, indeed, are the representatives of society as a whole. The 1992 Constitution of Ghana states that justice emanates from the people of Ghana and shall be administered on their behalf by the judiciary which is to be subject only to the constitution. Accordingly, it is right that the judiciary carries out its duties in the full gaze of the public and that the judiciary should be judged by the public. This is epitomized by Lord Donaldson when he painted a picture in his article titled “Beware This Abuse” thus; “I was a judge for 26 years. Every morning when I entered my court I knew that whoever else might be on trial, I was too. Neither I nor any other judge would make any complaint about this…No system is perfect and judges will make mistakes.” As the legal landscape evolves, judges continue to find themselves under serious scrutiny from lawyers and the public at large. These criticisms may range from perceived biases, to delays in justice delivery, to perceived errors in judgments; all sparking debates about judicial accountability and independence. As we draw the curtains to the year 2025 and even as we journey towards entering the new year, reflecting on these dynamics becomes crucial. Judges ought to build resilience amidst criticisms and lawyers ought to properly play their role in shaping judicial discourse. This essay explores these issues in a bid to shed light on strengthening Ghana’s judiciary.

Uninformed criticisms by “criticising lawyers”

Gone are the days where judge’s decisions were not scrutinized or readily criticised. In these days, more so in the year 2025, people are very eager to pounce on judicial actions and decisions in a bid to criticise and scrutinize same, irrespective of the motivations behind doing same. In these days, the truth is that criticism goes with the territory. Lawyers – I call them criticising lawyers – are ever ready to have their say on any judiciary related issue and to criticise mostly without restraint. That should not be a problem if there is a clear understanding of the dichotomy between informed and uninformed criticism. Rather, it is common to find criticising lawyers, doing their criticism without having attended the trial or without having the benefit of the judgment or the actual reasoning behind the judgment delivered by the judge. Most criticising lawyers voice their criticism on the basis of a wholly misleading appreciation of the facts based upon necessarily truncated media reports. Uninformed criticism, according to Lord Donaldson, “is irritating and indeed depressing for the individual judges concerned.” It is even more pathetic because these judges are by their training and the ethics of their profession not allowed to comment or respond to such criticisms even where same is unfounded and baseless. Though lawyers play a crucial role in shaping justice, this role comes with the responsibility to exercise restraint and avoid uninformed criticism. Uninformed criticism erodes the public trust in the judiciary and undermines its authority. Criticism should be constructive and respectful, focusing on issues rather than personalities. Lawyers must uphold the dignity of their profession by promoting temperate and informed discourse. The courts are not above criticism; however, they should not be subjected to pressures from irresponsible criticism. 

Judicial resilience in the new year

As Ghana’s judiciary looks to the new year, building resilience remains key. Judges are not gods, but men who are clothed with judicial authority to be administered on behalf of the people of Ghana. Judges, being human, are bound to make genuine mistakes and errors. These are part of their humanity for which reason the constitution exempts and insulates judges from any liability arising from wrongful decisions and judgments given in the course of duty. It is in the interest of the public to allow judges to freely exercise their independent judgment about the merits of a case without fear of punishment. The only caveat being that the immunity would not extend to corrupt and bias judges. To build resilience, the judiciary must reflect on the dying year and resolve in the coming year to prioritize transparency, efficiency and accountability. The ability of the judiciary to dispense timely and impartial justice depends on increased capacity, structural clarity and sustainable funding. Taking these crucial steps would allow the judiciary to perform their constitutionally mandated duties whilst navigating criticism and by so doing reinforce the public trust and confidence. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, the independence of the judiciary is essential to ensure that judges can make decisions without fear or favour, but this independence must be balanced against the need for accountability and transparency. Ultimately, the judiciary’s legitimacy depends on its ability to uphold the rule of law. Lawyers play an important role in ensuring judicial accountability. This role must, however, be carried out responsibly in a manner devoid of uninformed and baseless criticism which only contributes to destroying and reducing the confidence of the public in the judiciary. Above all, judges must resolve to develop resilience entering into the year 2026 in order to fulfil their constitutional mandate to the citizenry.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUOUS READERSHIP OF OUR MONDAY LEGAL ESSAY SERIES. 

I WISH YOU SEASON’S GREETINGS!

MAY THE NEW YEAR BRING CLARITY AND PROGRESS TO YOU AND OUR LEGAL SYSTEM.

God bless!