Prof Asare warns Chief Justice over 'partisan' language in public remarks

Ghana's prominent legal scholar Prof Kwaku Asare has issued a pointed warning to Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, urging him to exercise greater restraint in public comments that could be perceived as endorsing one political administration over another. The caution follows remarks the Chief Justice made during a visit to the Minerals Income Investment Fund, where he praised institutional performance and wondered aloud what Ghana had been doing over the previous eight years—language Prof Asare argues carries unmistakable partisan overtones in Ghana's political context.

What sparked the concern

During his MIIF visit on 2 September, Chief Justice Baffoe-Bonnie commended the fund and other state institutions, expressing surprise at recent developments. He noted that some of what he had witnessed made him wonder what the country had accomplished in the preceding eight years. He further compared current institutional performance to previous plans to sell SSNIT assets, including Labadi Beach Hotel, suggesting a marked improvement.

While the Chief Justice did not explicitly name administrations, Prof Asare contends that the phrase 'the past eight years' carries unmistakable political meaning in Ghana's discourse, effectively comparing the current government's performance with its predecessor.

Why judicial independence matters

Prof Asare's concern centres not on whether the Chief Justice's observations are factually correct, but on the institutional implications of such language coming from Ghana's head of Judiciary. He argues that judges, whilst remaining citizens with personal views, assume special obligations when donning the judicial robe—particularly the Chief Justice, whose pronouncements carry institutional weight.

The legal scholar emphasises that no citizen appearing before the courts should harbour doubt about whether the Chief Justice has already formed favourable or unfavourable views about a particular administration. This is especially critical given that cases involving decisions and actions of both previous and current governments will inevitably reach the courts. Public comments comparing administrations risk creating the appearance that judicial neutrality has been compromised.

Prof Asare frames the issue as one of protecting an institution rather than questioning the Chief Justice's motives or accuracy. He writes: 'The point is not whether the observation is right or wrong. Nor is it about the motives of the speaker. It is about protecting an institution.'

Reciprocal obligations in Ghana's democracy

A key element of Prof Asare's argument is his insistence that judicial independence requires reciprocal restraint. Ghana's democracy rightfully demands that politicians respect judicial independence and refrain from interfering in judicial matters. However, this obligation, Prof Asare contends, must flow both ways.

Judges—and especially the Chief Justice—must exercise equal restraint in staying clear of partisan political discourse. By making comparative assessments of government performance using language coded with political meaning, the Chief Justice risks appearing to step into territory traditionally reserved for the political arena.

Prof Asare warns that the comments become particularly consequential given Ghana's legal landscape. Future litigants challenging government decisions may question whether the head of Judiciary has already formed opinions about the administrations involved in their cases. This uncertainty, even if unfounded, threatens public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial system.

• Judges must balance citizenship rights with heightened restraint in public speech
• Comparative statements about administrations risk undermining perceived judicial neutrality
• Reciprocal restraint between judiciary and politicians protects institutional independence