ARTHUR KENNEDY QUESTIONS CHIEF JUSTICE’S SUITABILITY OVER CONTROVERSIAL SOE COMMENTS
By Boakye Stephen, Kumasi, Ghana | Reporting for Ghanaian News Canada
Political activist, physician and social commentator Dr Arthur Kobina Kennedy has questioned whether Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie fully appreciates the ethical boundaries associated with his office following controversial comments about state-owned enterprises.
Dr Kennedy argued that the Chief Justice should not need formal ethical rules to recognise when public comments could create an impression of political alignment.
“The Chief Justice does not need ethical laws to know that what he did was wrong,” Dr Kennedy said.
“If he does, then maybe he is not worthy of his office.”
The comments followed Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s visits to the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) and the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF) on September 2.
During the MIIF engagement, the Chief Justice praised the performance of the institution and other public bodies, saying their progress had made him question Ghana’s management of public institutions over the previous eight years.
“Sometimes when we hear how well some state organisations are doing now, we wonder what we really have been doing in the past eight years,” Justice Baffoe-Bonnie said.
He also raised questions about previous plans involving SSNIT assets and Ghana’s management of public resources.
Dr Kennedy said such remarks could affect perceptions of judicial neutrality and argued that the head of the Judiciary must be especially careful about how public statements are interpreted.
“A Chief Justice instinctively must know that things like this are inappropriate and avoid them,” he said.
“He is the exemplar for our judiciary.”
Dr Kennedy urged the Chief Justice to apologise and commit to avoiding similar conduct in the future.
“I hope you can find it in your heart to apologise and pledge to do no more,” he said.
He also criticised what he described as partisan reactions from both the NPP and NDC, arguing that supporters of the two parties had applied different standards to controversies involving former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo and the current Chief Justice.
“Equally, all the NDC people who saw everything wrong with what Torkornoo did but see everything right about this are hypocrites too, and they should keep quiet,” he said.
Dr Kennedy further stated: “Indeed, you sounded like an NDC official, unfortunately.”
He said the Chief Justice should instead concentrate on challenges facing the Judiciary, including delays in appeals, prolonged detention of prisoners, missing case dockets, judicial corruption and the assignment of judicial panels.
The Judicial Service has defended the Chief Justice’s commitment to judicial independence, acknowledging the “mixed public reaction” to his observations and maintaining that the comments were made in good faith.
“The Chief Justice remains committed to upholding the integrity and independence of the Judiciary, and the promotion of justice and equality before the law,” the Judicial Service said.
The Service did not announce an apology or withdrawal of the remarks.
Dr Kennedy nevertheless maintained that an apology would be appropriate.
“I urge you, Mr Chief Justice, not to disappoint us,” he said.
MAIN QUOTE
“The Chief Justice does not need ethical laws to know that what he did was wrong.”
COMMENTARY
The controversy is now centred less on the performance of state institutions and more on the boundaries of public commentary by the head of the Judiciary. While the Judicial Service has clarified the Chief Justice’s stated commitment to independence, concerns about public perception and institutional neutrality remain central to the debate.
