Why the advice if the president always has his way? – Kpemka slams judicial appointment process
A former Deputy Attorney General, Joseph Dindiok Kpemka, has raised constitutional red flags over the recent nomination of seven Appeal Court judges to the Supreme Court by President John Mahama, suggesting that the appointments may have bypassed essential procedural checks intended to safeguard judicial independence.
Speaking on Asaase Radio’s The Forum, Kpemka stressed that simply citing constitutional provisions is not enough to justify such a significant move.
“Just quoting the provision and saying that you are acting in compliance with Article 144(2), for me, is insufficient,” he said.
While Article 144(2) of the 1992 Constitution provides the legal framework for such appointments, Kpemka argued that the process should go beyond mere formality and reflect genuine consultation with the Judicial Council.
“The Judicial Council is very important in the process leading to the appointment,” he emphasized.
The former Deputy AG further questioned the effectiveness of the constitutional checks if presidential discretion consistently overrides advisory mechanisms.
“If all the time the President can have his way, then why the need for advice or consultation?” he asked, casting doubt on the spirit of balance and collaboration envisioned by the Constitution.
On April 29, 2025, President Mahama officially nominated Justices Sir Dennis Dominic Adjei, Gbiel Simon Suurbaareh, Senyo Dzamefe, Kweku Tawiah Ackah-Boafo, Philip Bright Mensah, Janpere Bartels-Kodwo, and Hafisata Ameleboba for elevation to the Supreme Court.
The announcement was conveyed through a letter signed by the Executive Secretary to the President, Dr Callistus Mahama, and addressed to the acting Chief Justice, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie.
While the nominations are expected to proceed through the necessary parliamentary vetting process, Kpemka’s remarks add a layer of scrutiny to what is already a politically sensitive and constitutionally critical undertaking.
