Former Deputy AG Questions Transparency in Mahama’s Supreme Court Nominations

Former Deputy Attorney General Joseph Dindiok Kpemka has raised constitutional concerns over President John Mahama’s nomination of seven Appeal Court justices to Ghana’s Supreme Court, arguing the process may have bypassed critical procedural safeguards.

The nominees Justices Sir Dennis Dominic Adjei, Gbiel Simon Suurbaareh, Senyo Dzamefe, Kweku Tawiah Ackah-Boafo, Philip Bright Mensah, Janpere Bartels-Kodwo, and Hafisata Ameleboba were selected under Article 144(2) of the 1992 Constitution, with their appointments pending review by the Judicial Council and parliamentary approval.

During an interview on Asaase Radio’s The Forum, Kpemka emphasized that the president’s letter, which cited constitutional compliance without detailing consultations with the Judicial Council or Council of State, risks eroding public trust. “Merely quoting Article 144(2) is insufficient,” he said. “Transparency in demonstrating adherence to mandated consultations is vital to preserving the judiciary’s independence.” He warned that omitting clear evidence of collaboration with advisory bodies could render the nominations unconstitutional, despite the president’s prerogative to appoint judges.

The Judicial Service confirmed the Judicial Council’s role in evaluating the nominees, but Kpemka stressed that the council’s non-binding advisory power undermines its effectiveness. “If the president can act unilaterally, why mandate consultation?” he asked, calling for constitutional reforms to strengthen the council’s authority. His remarks reflect broader debates over balancing executive discretion with institutional checks in judicial appointments, a recurring tension in Ghana’s governance framework.

The controversy echoes past disputes over judicial independence, such as the 2022 standoff between the judiciary and executive branch over alleged political interference. Legal experts note that while Article 144(2) grants the president nomination powers, its vague phrasing on “consultation” has historically fueled ambiguity. Former Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo, for instance, previously emphasized that consultations must be substantive, not ceremonial, to uphold constitutional integrity.

As Parliament prepares to vet the nominees, observers highlight the stakes for Ghana’s judiciary, which faces mounting pressure to address case backlogs and public perceptions of politicization. Kpemka’s intervention underscores the delicate interplay between legal procedure and political authority a dynamic that will shape not only these appointments but also future reforms aimed at clarifying Ghana’s judicial appointment protocols.