Judiciary becoming a playground for politicians – Franklin Cudjoe

Franklin Cudjoe, President of IMANI Africa, has strongly criticised Ghana’s judicial system, expressing disappointment with several of its recent rulings.Tourism packages

His comments followed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Speaker Alban Bagbin’s declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant.

In an interview on Channel One TV’s political show The Big Issue, Cudjoe accused the judiciary of becoming increasingly politicised, alleging that it is being used for political manoeuvring.

He expressed deep concern over the perceived partiality within the judicial system and urged Chief Justice Her Ladyship Gertrude Torkornoo to ensure the integrity of the judiciary is preserved in future decisions.

“The real issue has to do with the way we do our politics in this part of our world. Frankly speaking, my reading of the judiciary, unfortunately, in this particular case and a few of the cases, they have become like a playground for politicians.

“I think it’s a disappointment, I hope that they will redeem themselves quickly and the Chief Justice should put her house in order. Frankly speaking, it is not right to have almost 70% of the populace of the country say you are biased. It is not fair. It’s not pretty at all, and I think I’m part of that 70%. Maybe I’m on top of the 70% right now.”

On Tuesday, November 12, the Supreme Court overturned the decision made by Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin to declare four parliamentary seats vacant. This ruling was in favor of a challenge presented by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin.

In a comprehensive judgment issued on Thursday, November 14, the five justices who supported the Majority Leader emphasized that a parliamentary seat may only be deemed vacant if a lawmaker changes political parties while maintaining their position in Parliament.

The ruling additionally indicated that the Speaker’s decision would not be implemented during the present parliamentary term.

Nonetheless, two justices expressed dissent, contending that the Supreme Court did not possess the jurisdiction to hear the case, thereby underscoring a divergence in the understanding of the Court’s authority regarding these issues.