A proposal has been submitted for the review of Article 144 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, calling for the election of Supreme and Appeals Court judges instead of their appointment by the President. The proposal, which is currently under consideration by a designated committee, seeks to enhance democratic principles within the judiciary.
The proponent argues that while Article 144 outlines the modalities for appointing judges to these high courts, it “lacks the essential ingredient of democracy—elections—per the liberal governance system of the country.” According to the submission, the existing system has created “a totalitarian administrative structure in a wider democratic environment,” leading to conflicts with democratic values.
Proposal for Judicial Elections
The proposal recommends the introduction of “ritualistic general elections” for Supreme and Appeals Court judges every four years. These elections, it suggests, should be held a year before Ghana’s general parliamentary and presidential elections. The aim is to allow “citizens or eligible electorates nationwide” to elect judges in accordance with “universal adult suffrage standards.”
According to the proposal, introducing elections for judges would “displace the current judiciary totalitarianism” and align it with Ghana’s democratic principles. It also emphasizes that elected judges would owe their “allegiance to the citizens of Ghana instead of the appointing authority—the President of Ghana.”
“The generality of the citizens voting for their preferred judges would serve as a performance assessment and trust-building measure for the judiciary,” the submission states.
Term Limits and Judicial Independence
The proposal also outlines a structure for the elected judges, recommending that they “serve a maximum of two terms and a minimum of one term, with each term comprising four years.”
The submission criticizes the current nomination process, arguing that “Article 144 gives only one professional body an advantage in nominating judges,” which, it claims, creates a “monopolistic right that is undemocratic and needs reviewing.” The proposal describes the Legal Council’s control over nominations as “discriminatory and improper for our growing democracy.”
Concerns About Partisanship
While acknowledging concerns that judicial elections could lead to increased partisanship, the proposal argues that “the judiciary has been partisan since the inception of the Fourth Republic.” However, it suggests that elections could “minimize partisanship, as citizens would serve as a reality check by determining re-election or otherwise.”
In conclusion, the submission calls for a constitutional review to “allow the election of Supreme and Appeals Court judges by the general electorate,” asserting that such a change would strengthen democracy and ensure judicial accountability.
The proposal is now under review, and it remains to be seen whether it will gain traction among lawmakers and constitutional reform advocates.
