|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Ghana’s Chief Justice, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, has become the centre of a growing national debate following comments he made during visits to some state-owned institutions, including the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF) and the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT).
The comments have generated a political storm, with the country’s opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) accusing the head of the judiciary of making partisan political statements and demanding that he retract his comments or resign. But the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) has defended the Chief Justice’s right to comment on matters of national development, and rejected the NPP’s position.
What did the Chief Justice say?
Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie has been touring some state institutions. During his engagements with staff and management of some of these state institutions, the Chief Justice praised what he regarded as improvements in their performance.
In particular, when he met the management of the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF), he contrasted the situation he observed with what he described as the condition of some institutions over the preceding eight years.
The Chief Justice was quoted as saying, “I must congratulate you. I mean, you have done marvellously well. See, because sometimes when we hear the things that you have done, the things that some organisations are doing now, we wonder; some of us keep wondering what really we have been doing in the past eight years.”
Media reports on the CJ’s controversial comment can be found here, here, here and here. Also, see a news report on MIIF’s website on the CJ’s visit and public praise of the institution’s performance.
The Chief Justice also reportedly expressed concern about SSNIT’s previous management and the possibility of disposing of valuable state assets.
Critics, including the opposition NPP and the Ghana Bar Association, say his remarks moved beyond congratulating officials and raised the broader question of how state institutions were managed under previous administrations.
Reaction from the NPP, Ghana Bar Association and CDD
The NPP has taken a strong position against the Chief Justice’s comments. The party accused Justice Baffoe-Bonnie of crossing the boundary between judicial responsibility and partisan politics.
The country’s largest opposition party argued that the head of the Judiciary must remain politically neutral and should not publicly praise the governing administration while criticising its predecessor’s performance.
The NPP consequently called on the Chief Justice to retract his remarks or resign. The party argued that his comments were inconsistent with the judiciary’s constitutional responsibilities and the ethical expectations imposed on judicial officers.
The Ghana Bar Association (GBA), at its annual delegates conference in Ada in the Greater Accra Region, described the Chief Justice’s comment as unfortunate.
Presenting her address at the conference on Sept. 14, 2026, GBA President Effua Ghartey expressed disappointment over the CJ’s comments praising a government institution’s performance, warning that such remarks could undermine the judiciary’s independence.
The Ghana Centre for Democratic Development, CDD-Ghana, took a more critical position. CDD-Ghana argued that by explicitly contrasting the current administration’s performance with that of its predecessor, the Chief Justice risked crossing into partisan validation.
The organisation said such commentary could create a perception of political bias and compromise the Judiciary’s non-partisan mandate. It specifically linked the controversy to the Code of Conduct for Judges and Magistrates and the requirement that judges preserve public confidence in judicial impartiality.
The governing NDC defends the Chief Justice’s comment
But the country’s governing NDC found nothing wrong with the Chief Justice’s comment. The party rejected the NPP’s demand for the Chief Justice’s resignation.
NDC Deputy General Secretary Mustapha Gbande argued that there is nothing inherently wrong with the Chief Justice commenting on national development or praising institutions whose performance he believes has improved.
“The Chief Justice is not NDC. I don’t know him. I don’t know him to be NDC. The NDC does not need a Chief Justice to comment for us…I don’t think the Chief Justice should resign. I don’t know him. I don’t know his opinion. I don’t think that this is a comment that calls for anybody’s resignation,” he told Accra-based JOY FM.
The Judiciary’s Response
The Judicial Service has defended the Chief Justice’s intentions, explaining that the Chief Justice’s observations were made in good faith and were not intended to serve any purpose inimical to the independence of the judiciary.
In a statement issued on Sept. 4, 2026, the Judicial Service said it had noted the mixed public reaction to the Chief Justice’s observations during his outreach engagements, adding that he did nothing wrong.
What Does Ghana’s Code of Conduct for Judges and Magistrates Say?
Article 125 of the 1992 Constitution provides that justice shall be administered by an independent judiciary, while Article 127 specifically protects the judiciary’s independence in exercising its judicial and administrative functions.
Ghana’s Code of Conduct for Judges and Magistrates was designed to establish principles and standards of judicial conduct and to support the judiciary’s independence and impartiality while promoting public trust and confidence in the judicial system.
The Code applies not only to a judge’s official duties but also to other activities and even aspects of private life.
Rule 1: Upholding the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
Rule 1 of the Code provides that an independent and honourable judiciary is indispensable to justice and requires judges to maintain high standards of conduct to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary. The commentary emphasises that public confidence in judges’ integrity and independence depends on judges acting without fear or favour.
Rule 2: Avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety
Rule 2 of the Code states that a judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the Judiciary’s integrity and impartiality. It also provides that a judge should not allow political or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment and should not use the prestige of judicial office to advance private interests or create an impression of special influence.
Rule 3: Impartiality
Similarly, Rule 3 of the Code requires judges to remain impartial in discharging their judicial responsibilities. Commentary on the Code has specifically highlighted the principle that partisan interests, public clamour or fear of criticism should not sway a judge.
The Code recognises that judges can participate in certain activities outside their adjudicative functions, particularly activities connected with improving the law, the legal system and the administration of justice. Such activities, however, must not detract from the dignity of judicial office or interfere with judicial duties.
Does the Code prohibit judges from speaking publicly?
While critics say the Chief Justice’s comment breaches the Code, his supporters believe otherwise.
The NPP, CDD and the GBA believe that the Chief Justice crossed the line into partisan political commentary. The NDC disagrees, arguing that the Chief Justice was commenting on the performance of state institutions and national development. But the Judicial Service maintains that the observations were made in good faith and were not intended to undermine judicial independence.
The Code recognises certain extrajudicial and avocational activities that judges may engage in concerning the law, legal education and the administration of justice, provided those activities do not compromise the dignity of their office or their judicial responsibilities. But it cautions against partisan commentary to preserve judicial independence.
