Senior political science lecturer at the University of Ghana, Dr. Joshua Zaato, says the recent standoff over the vetting of a new Chief Justice reflects the inherently partisan nature of Ghana’s legislature, not merely a fight for judicial independence.
Reacting to the minority’s walkout during the vetting proceedings, Dr. Zaato told the Asaase Breakfast Show on Tuesday (11 November) that Parliament is, by design, a political arena where ideological and partisan interests often clash.
“Parliament is a house of politics — a house of partisanship,” he said. “It’s not surprising that the events unfolded that way. Legislative houses are built for ideological grandstanding and philosophical maximisation.”
He compared Ghana’s Parliament to the U.S. Congress, noting that partisanship is a global feature of democratic lawmaking.
“Even in the U.S., Congress has been shut down over ideological differences that cost more than what they were arguing about,” he said. “So, this is not strange. It’s part of how politics functions.”
On the minority’s claim that their protest was to defend judicial independence, Dr. Zaato argued that the appointment of justices — including Chief Justices — is inherently political and ideological.
“We pretend that appointments to superior courts are not partisan, but even if they aren’t partisan, they are ideological,” he explained. “In mature democracies, presidents openly say they will appoint liberal or conservative justices. Elections have consequences — and judicial appointments are part of that.”
He emphasised that every president naturally selects justices they trust to share similar legal or moral philosophies, though that does not always translate into bias in judgment.
“No president in Ghana appoints a Chief Justice he doesn’t trust,” Dr. Zaato said. “But that doesn’t mean the person will do the president’s bidding once on the bench. There’s a difference between how you’re appointed and how you perform in office.”
He added that the process of appointment is political by nature, but professionalism begins after the appointment.
“You can be an IGP appointed by Party A, but at heart, you’re a police officer trained to serve the law,” he said. “In the same way, judges must draw a red line between who appointed them and how they work.”
Dr. Zaato said while Ghana must confront the creeping politicization of the judiciary, citizens should also accept that ideological leanings will always influence judicial appointments in democracies.
“Partisanship, philosophy, and ideology play a key role in who gets appointed,” he said. “What matters is whether, once appointed, they uphold their oath to the constitution above politics.”
He concluded that the unfolding debates around the judiciary’s independence, though politically charged, could ultimately deepen public understanding of Ghana’s constitutional framework.
“This battle may look political,” he said, “but it forces us to confront the realities of how our democracy works — and that’s not a bad thing.”
Source: metrotvonline.com
