Chief Justice Must Apologise for SOE Comments, Says Dr Arthur Kennedy

Prominent political activist and physician Dr Arthur Kobina Kennedy has publicly demanded that Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie apologise for comments made during recent visits to state-owned enterprises, warning that the remarks risk undermining public confidence in the judiciary's independence.

The controversy centres on statements the Chief Justice made during tours of the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF) and the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) on 2 September. During these visits, Justice Baffoe-Bonnie praised the performance of these institutions and questioned what Ghana had accomplished over the previous eight years, comparing current achievements favourably to the recent past.

"I must congratulate you. I mean, you have done marvellously well," the Chief Justice said at MIIF, before adding: "Sometimes when we hear the things that you have done, the things that some organisations are doing now, we wonder; some of us keep wondering what really we have been doing in the past eight years."

Why This Matters for Ghana

The controversy strikes at the heart of judicial independence in Ghana—a cornerstone of democratic governance. When the head of the judiciary appears to praise one administration's performance over another's, it raises legitimate questions about whether citizens and rival political parties can trust the courts to remain impartial in politically sensitive cases.

Dr Kennedy's intervention is particularly significant because he has deliberately stepped back from partisan framing. Rather than using the Chief Justice's comments to attack the current government or defend the previous one, he has argued that the issue transcends party politics and affects the institution of the judiciary itself.

Ghana's Constitution and judicial precedent emphasise that judges must not only be independent but must appear to be independent. The optics of the Chief Justice touring state institutions and offering comparative commentary on governance performance—regardless of his intent—can create the impression of political alignment. This perception, if left unchecked, can erode public trust in the courts across all political divides.

The Broader Pattern of Concern

Dr Kennedy noted that similar concerns arose under former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, and he criticised supporters of both the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) for applying double standards depending on which administration was being favoured. This selective outrage, he argued, misses the point: the issue is not which party benefits, but whether the judiciary as an institution is compromising its neutrality.

"What you did was beneath the dignity of your office, and it did not reflect well on you or the judiciary," Dr Kennedy said in a video commentary, urging the Chief Justice to acknowledge the concerns, apologise formally, and commit to avoiding similar conduct in future.

Official Response and Path Forward

The Judicial Service issued a statement on 4 September acknowledging the "mixed public reaction" to the Chief Justice's remarks. However, the statement stopped short of an apology, stating only that the observations were made in good faith and not intended to undermine judicial independence.

The statement emphasised the Chief Justice's commitment to "upholding the integrity and independence of the Judiciary," but this assertion of commitment, without an acknowledgement of how the recent comments may have contradicted it, leaves the controversy unresolved.

Dr Kennedy's call for a formal apology and undertaking reflects growing expectations that judicial leaders must be more cautious in their public conduct and commentary, particularly during election cycles or when governance comparisons between administrations could invite political misinterpretation.