Constitutional reform must deliver institutions that serve Ghanaians
A judge may be independent on paper and still struggle to deliver justice because a court lacks staff, reliable computers or funds to operate. A public institution may have impressive legal powers yet depend on political goodwill for appointments and resources. These contradictions should be central to Ghana’s constitutional reform debate.
The question is practical: how do we build institutions that serve citizens fairly, whichever party governs?
The judiciary provides a useful example. Courts interpret laws, settle disputes and check abuses of executive and legislative power. Their effectiveness affects everyone, from a trader pursuing an unpaid debt to a family contesting land ownership. When cases drag on, businesses lose money, relationships deteriorate and confidence in lawful solutions weakens.
Independence needs resources
“Even judges must eat” captures an important truth. Judges and court workers need decent conditions, while courts need buildings, records, equipment and functioning systems. Independence requires the means to do the work.
Ghana’s Constitution already recognises this. Article 127 protects judicial independence, including financial administration. It charges judicial administrative expenses on the Consolidated Fund, protects conditions of service and requires quarterly releases of judicial funds. The Judicial Service Act, 2020, also provides for administration, funding, audit and reporting.
The challenge is making these protections work. Citizens should be able to see what courts request, what Parliament approves, what is released and how the money is spent. Institutions receiving public funds must explain both their needs and their results.
A 1988 study published by the Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers makes a distinction that remains useful: freedom to decide cases must be supported by security in employment and material conditions. Constitutional promises lose value when inflation erodes salaries or funding commitments go unmet.
Appointments must inspire confidence
Under Article 144, Supreme Court appointments involve the President, Judicial Council, Council of State and Parliament. Sharing responsibility creates safeguards, but procedures must also inspire public confidence.
In Ghana Bar Association and Others v Attorney-General and Others, decided in 2016, the Supreme Court confirmed that a Supreme Court appointment requires a Judicial Council recommendation, although the President need not appoint every recommended person.
The Constitution Review Committee proposes more structured selection procedures. Government’s July 2026 Position Paper rejects the proposed constitutional changes to appointment processes, favouring existing arrangements. These differences deserve public debate.
Published vacancies, clear criteria and transparent procedures would help citizens judge whether merit drives appointments. Britain’s Constitutional Reform Act 2005 established a Judicial Appointments Commission, operating from 2006 principally in England and Wales. Ghana need not copy it, but can learn from its emphasis on merit and good character.
Protection must reach Circuit and District Courts too. Existing constitutional safeguards should be acknowledged, while staffing, working conditions and disciplinary procedures receive serious attention. Most citizens experience justice through these courts.
Social pressure matters
Political interference is only part of the problem. Public officials also face demands from relatives, friends, schoolmates, religious communities and party supporters. Requests for preferential treatment often arrive as appeals to loyalty or gratitude.
My 2008 doctoral research at Oxford Brookes University examined cultural and institutional pressures through surveys and 35 interviews. Discussing approaches to judges on behalf of relatives, participant PA2 argued: “He should be cut off from such things so that when he goes he reads the case and gives objective judgements.”
This illustrates perceived pressure from personal connections; it does not establish that all judges yield to it.
Family solidarity is valuable. So are funerals, weddings and community celebrations. However, expectations of lavish spending and reciprocal favours can place pressure on public workers. Better salaries help, but cannot replace ethical boundaries.
Articles 284 and 286 already address conflicts of interest and asset declarations. Enforcement matters. Public office should never become a means of financing social status or rewarding personal networks.
Respect for authority should allow questioning. Community loyalty should coexist with impartiality. Our cultural strengths include investment in children’s education and mutual support; reform should build on these while challenging practices that undermine fairness.
Technology should improve justice
Digital reform deserves sustained investment. Electronic filing, searchable records, digital payments and reliable hearing schedules could reduce missing files, unnecessary journeys and opportunities for unofficial payments.
Case management systems should record adjournments and their reasons, helping judges identify avoidable delays. Appropriate remote hearings could save time without weakening fair participation. Citizens should be able to track cases and obtain published judgments.
Public reporting should show case age, vacancies, expenditure and performance. However, judges should not be pressured to sacrifice careful decisions merely to improve disposal figures.
Technology also needs maintenance, training, cybersecurity and proper judicial control. People without internet access or digital skills must receive assistance. A computer system that excludes citizens cannot deliver accessible justice.
Reform must also address political financing. When financial support for parties is treated as an investment to be repaid through appointments, contracts or access, public institutions become vulnerable to private interests. Transparent financing and credible scrutiny can help interrupt that cycle.
A shared national responsibility
Afrobarometer’s 2024 survey found that only 35% of Ghanaians trusted courts somewhat or a lot, compared with 57% in 2017. Such perceptions underline the need to rebuild confidence through visible fairness and accountability.
Citizens, journalists and professional bodies have responsibilities too. They should scrutinise decisions, demand reliable information and challenge wrongdoing without assuming every unpopular judgment reflects corruption. Protecting legitimate authority and questioning its use are compatible democratic duties.
The CRC’s recommendations emerged from nationwide consultation. Government’s position is an executive response, not the end of the conversation. Where proposals differ, citizens deserve clear explanations and genuine efforts to find agreement.
Ghana needs transparent appointments, predictable funding, stronger oversight, effective ethical enforcement and technology that improves services. Some changes require constitutional amendment; others require legislation or implementation of safeguards already in place.
It behoves all well-meaning Ghanaians to help secure agreement on necessary reforms and hold authorities accountable for delivery. Constitutional reform must become a shared national responsibility that survives changes of government.
Institutions should belong to the Republic. Their authority must serve all citizens fairly, their resources must match their responsibilities, and their independence must be accompanied by accountability.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Tags:
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.