On Tuesday October 24, 2023, a former Supreme Court justice, William Atuguba, delivered a lecture at the University of Ghana at an event organised by Solidare Ghana on the theme: Protecting our Democracy, the Role of the Judiciary.
His twenty-four-page long speech dealt a lot about the judiciary system in Ghana, but very little about himself. He was able to bring out what he thought were faults of other judges but cleverly hid his own.
He said there were perceptions of political inclinations on the part of some judges and here he cleverly excluded his very self, even though in his speech he could not hid from the fact he is a political animal.
Justice Atuguba pointed out what was behind the rulings made against the Busia Administration in the Court of Appeal in April 1970 in the case of Sallah vs The Attorney General. Two of the judges were biased (corrupt) and attempts to get them replaced failed. Justice Apaloo was a very close friend of the plaintiff and Justice Sowah was influenced by his brother-in-law’s wife to make sure that Sallah won the case.
Instead of reviewing the judgment, as he did with the Gyekye Quayson’s case, William Atuguba’s political bias came to play by informing us of Busia’s response that‘no court can enforce any decision that seeks to compel the government to employ or re-employ anyone.’Anyway, did Busia violate any law by laying off workers?
Art. 140 of the 1969 Constitution which gave the power of appointment to a public officer, and the Prime Minister was the top public officer.
Atuguba did not tell Ghanaians that the dismissal of workers in 1970 was couched in the 1969 Constitution prepared under the NLC government where some workers were to be dismissed for wrong conducts. A person in the calibre of Justice William Atuguba certainly could not have forgotten all these. Is he being politically inclined, as to protecting his political lineage?
How could the renowned judge claim that President Kufuor came out with executive intimidation when he gave notice to overturn the Fast-Track court verdict which went against him and go on to compare it to the institutional murder of three high court judges and a retired army officer during the Rawlings’ PNDC era?
Was Atuguba not aware that the Fast TrackCourt system was introduced by the NDC before Kufuor took over? Was a former NDC minister not jailed for financial malfeasance in the Fast Track Court deal?Unlike Nkrumah who would have dismiss the judges from office, Kufuor used the same legal process to seek review.
William Atuguba gave glowing tributes to Chief Justice Akufo-Addo and even went on to state that even though he served as Supreme Court judge for a total of five years, he excelled with distinction in judicial service. He cleverly run away from the reasons Akufo-Addo was dismissed by Nkrumah. This would have condemned Nkrumah, and this Atuguba did not want.
After the overthrow of Nkrumah, as William Atuguba stated, the judiciary came under much criticism for the role it played under the CPP administration. He could have continued to express dismay in some judges who came out with landmark judgments against the Busia Administration after tasting freedom for the first time.
Judges like Apaloo and Sowah were biased and set aside what was in the constitution to give the judgment, they did. Talking about setting aside the Constitution and William Atuguba can be a good example.
The former Supreme Court judge did not educate us on what happened to the judiciary in Ghana during the first republic. He needed to explain to us whether for the sake of democracy it was good for Nkrumah to dismiss judges who came out with verdicts not pleasing to him. Why should he overlook the Nkrumah days?
The way William Atuguba tore, to shreds the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Gyekye Quayson, one is tempted to ask whether if he was on the panel and differed from the rest, would he come public to condemn the majority?
Going round to establish that once Gyekye Quayson produced a certificate of denunciation of his Canadian citizenship before Election Day 2020, he should have been allowed to go through, is unfair to justice.
There are three major steps to taking up employment after the job had been advertised. They are interview, appointment letter and date to start work. In the advert, requirements are stated, like academic qualification and years of experience.
The first step is to attend interview, where the requirements will be scrutinized among other things. And here, one cannot say he is yet to acquire this or that certificate to prove he is qualified for the job. Once he does not haveall the requirements,he is out, and cannot proceed further to the next stages.
In the case under review, step one is the submission of nomination papers, step two is Election Day and step three is the inauguration of Parliament. So, it does not make sense for someone to be admitted as qualifying to stand elections when they have not satisfied all the requirements.
In the Gyekye Quayson case, the judicial precedent on time for qualification and eligibility under Article 94 (1), an authority can be found in the Republic v. High Court (General Jurisdiction), Accra; Ex Parte Zanetor Rawlings (Ashittey and National Democratic Congress.
In this case, Zanetor’s election as parliamentary candidate for NDC in the Korle Klottey constituency was challenged on the grounds that she was not a registered voter and thus fell short of the eligibility requirements of Art 94 (1).
The issue went to court and the Supreme Court ruling in her favour, said the Art. 94 (1) becomes operative at the time the Electoral Commission, commences the statutory processes for nomination and filing for parliamentary candidates and not at the time of primaries by political parties.
In other words, the day of filing of nomination would determine the eligibility of the candidate and not any other time.
Talking about the birth certificate no longer being a legal proof of nationality is a case to be passionately discussed. We need a base document as the form of national identification and the birth certificate is supposed to be the one.
However, how authentic can it be, if the only proof of identity of the parents’ nationality, which would become the baby’s nationality, is just word of mouth? Before we condemn the Supreme Court, we must think this through and come with a solution.
William Atuguba is saying that the mode of nominating people to the bench should not be determined by the president but solely by an independent body because as things stand President Nana Akufo-Addo has appointed only his cronies to the bench. Where from this? Is it only when the courts rule in favour of the NPP that the judges on the panel are cronies of the president?
If this is to be accepted as the norm, then how come that with seven out of the nine judges on the 2012 Presidential Elections Petition, who were appointed by an NPP government, the verdict returned 4-5 against the NPP? And an NDC appointee, Justice Yaw Appau, once ruled against the NDC in a recent case?
I may not always agree with the rulings from the courts but where I disagree, I will never ascribe cronyism or other vices. This current system is okay, since the final approving authority is the House of Parliament.
And the House has rejected an appointee or two, before. Unless William Atuguba will prove that Parliament is a corrupt institution. How sacrosanct will an independent body be in solely appointing judges to our courts, when most likely some members will have their favourites.
Justice William Anaam Atuguba came into the limelight when he headed the panel of nine judges to deal with the 2012 Presidential Petition. That was when all of Ghana got to know him. Why he never discussed his conduct during the eight-month long case, in his lecture at Legon, is very obvious.
One day in court, he bellowed and announced to all Ghanaians that he was more powerful than the president. Is it what our 1992 Constitution states?
The Supreme Court dragged three NPP members and one NDC member before it for making contemptuous statements about the proceedings in court. When the Supreme Court was petitioned about another NDC member who also made contemptuous statements, William Atuguba told us that the petition was not properly written so the man was left off the hook. Explanations are needed here.
When he was about to read the judgment in August 2013, William Atuguba said that nowhere in Africa had results of elections in favour of the ruling party,been overturned in court, and Ghana cannot be the exception.
William Atuguba in his lectures, quoted one Dr. Lawrence who said in Ghana, the Judiciary is gradually becoming a thin god, allowing them to pass some outrageous judgments. Unfortunately, Atuguba’s pronouncement that he was the most powerful man in Ghana makes him a tin god.
Then in order to make sure that the plaintiff lost his case, he did what the Supreme Court did in 1970, when Art. 140 of the 1969 Constitution was set aside. Atuguba also set aside Art. 49 (3) of the 1992 Constitution which made it mandatory for the presiding officer at the polling station to sign the results slip.
Thousands of presiding officers did not sign the declaration and that was an integral part of the petition. If William Atuguba had been honest and fair, and accepted that the wrong thing was done, the plaintiff would have won the petition.
This act directly reflects his quotation from Prof. Date-Bah on page 18, which stated that “this must be a cause of worry to students and practitioners of Constitutional Law.”For William Atuguba to publish Dr. Lawrence statement that only John Mahama can come and lead the process to repair the judicial system in Ghana, clearly betrays his political lineage.
If there have been problems with some judges in this country, it is about their selfish ways of doing things and not about the system of appointment.
William Atuguba had the opportunity to speak on the judiciary from 1957 to date but cleverly left out areas that would injure his political lineage. His attempt was to condemn the UP Tradition and rewrite history. His presentation did not treat the topic fairly at all. It was more of a propaganda campaign for the NDC. And is William Atuguba saying Ghanaians must kick against transfer of judges? Please Justice William Anaam Atuguba, come again.
Hon Daniel Dugan
