The New Patriotic Party’s call for the resignation of Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie over comments he made about President John Dramani Mahama’s administration deserves serious national discussion.
The Chief Justice, as the head of Ghana’s Judiciary, must be held to the highest standards of integrity, independence and impartiality. There should be no compromise on that principle.
But if the debate is about judicial neutrality, then the standard applied must be consistent. Ghana cannot have one definition of judicial neutrality when the NPP is in power and another when the NDC is in power.
Chief Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, during a visit to the Minerals Income Investment Fund, reportedly praised improvements in some state institutions and expressed the hope that President Mahama’s agenda succeeds.
His comments have been interpreted by the NPP as partisan, with the party arguing that the head of the Judiciary should not appear to endorse the agenda of a sitting government.
That argument is legitimate and deserves scrutiny. But it must also be tested against Ghana’s recent political history.
What did Chief Justice Torkornoo say about Nana Addo?
In May 2024, Gertrude Torkornoo was the sitting Chief Justice when she made highly complimentary remarks about then-President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.
She described him as a “lawyer and champion of justice” and praised his contribution to Ghana’s legal history.
She also spoke positively about his commitment to the rule of law and acknowledged the support his administration had provided to the Judicial Service, particularly in infrastructure and technology.
These were clearly complimentary remarks about a sitting President by the head of the Judiciary.
There was criticism of those comments. Then-NDC National Communications Officer Sammy Gyamfi, for instance, questioned whether such praise was appropriate from the Chief Justice.
But the important question for today’s debate is this:
Did the NPP demand the resignation of Chief Justice Torkornoo because of those remarks?
If not, then why should similar comments by Chief Justice Baffoe-Bonnie automatically be treated as proof that he has become politically partisan?
The point is not that the two statements are identical. They are not.
The point is that the same principle of neutrality must apply regardless of which political party occupies the Presidency.
Context matters
Some may argue that there is a significant difference between praising a President’s legal credentials and telling officials to ensure that his political agenda succeeds.
That distinction deserves consideration.
Indeed, Chief Justice Baffoe-Bonnie could perhaps have chosen more carefully worded language, particularly given the constitutional position he occupies.
But an ill-judged or politically sensitive statement is not, by itself, proof that the Judiciary has lost its independence.
The more serious question is whether such comments have translated into conduct that compromises judicial impartiality.
Has the Chief Justice directed judges to favour the governing party?
Has he interfered in cases involving the government?
Has he used his office to shield government officials from accountability?
Has he instructed the Judiciary to protect President Mahama or the NDC?
Those are the questions that should matter most when assessing whether judicial independence has actually been compromised.
The Georgina Wood example
Ghana’s political history also offers another useful lesson.
Former Chief Justice Georgina Theodora Wood received public praise from President Akufo-Addo after her retirement for her contribution to Ghana’s Judiciary and democracy.
The fact that a political leader praised a former Chief Justice did not, by itself, make her an NPP politician.
That distinction is important.
Praise does not automatically establish political allegiance.
A politician can praise a judge. A judge can acknowledge a government’s contribution to an institution. A Chief Justice can commend the work of a state institution.
None of these actions, standing alone, proves that the Judiciary has become partisan.
The Honyenuga controversy
Ghana has also witnessed controversy over comments by judicial officers that were interpreted as politically sympathetic.
In 2020, Justice Clemence Honyenuga faced questions during his parliamentary vetting over comments made at a durbar that some interpreted as an endorsement of then-President Akufo-Addo.
Justice Honyenuga explained the circumstances and apologised if his words had been interpreted as political endorsement.
The episode demonstrated how sensitive political statements by judicial officers can be.
Judges therefore have a responsibility to exercise extraordinary caution in their public statements.
But caution must not become selective outrage.
If a judicial officer makes comments that appear favourable to the NPP, they should be scrutinised.
If another makes comments that appear favourable to the NDC, those comments should receive the same scrutiny.
One standard. No exceptions.
The real test of judicial independence
The Judiciary must never become an extension of the Executive.
The Chief Justice must not allow partisan considerations to influence judicial decisions.
But judicial independence is not ultimately measured by whether a Chief Justice has ever praised a President or acknowledged positive developments under a particular administration.
It is measured by what happens when political power comes before the courts.
Can the Judiciary rule against the government when the government is wrong?
Can it protect the opposition when the opposition is right?
Can it hold ministers and public officials accountable?
Can an ordinary Ghanaian enter a courtroom and expect justice regardless of political affiliation?
That is the real test.
If Chief Justice Baffoe-Bonnie fails that test, then Ghana must demand accountability.
But if the evidence is limited to comments praising state institutions and expressing the hope that the President’s development agenda succeeds, then we should be careful before declaring that judicial independence has been compromised.
Political neutrality must not become a political weapon
The NPP has every right to criticise the Chief Justice.
It has every right to argue that his comments were inappropriate.
But the party must also be prepared to apply the same standard to similar conduct when it comes from judicial officers perceived to be sympathetic to the NPP.
This is not about defending Chief Justice Baffoe-Bonnie from criticism.
It is about defending the principle of consistency.
If praise of Nana Akufo-Addo by a sitting Chief Justice did not automatically establish partisan allegiance, then praise of achievements under John Mahama should not automatically establish NDC allegiance.
The Chief Justice is not above scrutiny.
But the accusation of partisanship should be supported by evidence, particularly when the demand is for the resignation of the head of Ghana’s Judiciary.
We must distinguish between politically sensitive language and actual political interference in the administration of justice.
They are not the same thing.
Our position
Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie may have chosen words that were politically uncomfortable. He may even have gone further than some Ghanaians would expect from the head of the Judiciary.
But before demanding his resignation, the country should ask a more fundamental question:
What has he done, in the exercise of his judicial responsibilities, to demonstrate that he is no longer independent?
If there is evidence, let it be produced.
If he has interfered with justice, let him be held accountable.
If he has allowed party politics to influence the Judiciary, Ghana must act.
But if the evidence is simply that he praised some state institutions under President Mahama and expressed the hope that the government’s agenda succeeds, then the demand for resignation risks becoming a political response to a political interpretation.
That would be dangerous.
Governments change. Presidents change. Chief Justices change.
But constitutional principles must remain.
Political neutrality must therefore be a principle, not a weapon.
If praising Nana Akufo-Addo did not automatically make a sitting Chief Justice an NPP politician, then praising achievements under John Mahama should not automatically make the current Chief Justice an NDC politician.
Ghana deserves an independent Judiciary.
But Ghana also deserves consistency, fairness and honesty in the debate over judicial independence.
The ultimate question is not simply:
“Did the Chief Justice praise Mahama?”
The more important question is:
“Has the Chief Justice allowed political considerations to influence the administration of justice?”
Until that question is answered with credible evidence, calls for his resignation should remain a political position open to debate, rather than being presented as an established constitutional conclusion.
Let us defend judicial independence without weaponising judicial neutrality.
Story by Stephen Kwaku Owusu Mintah