A prominent traditional ruler has issued a stern warning against the unchecked expansion of Ghana’s Supreme Court, arguing that the absence of a constitutional cap on the number of justices leaves the nation’s apex court dangerously exposed to political manipulation.
Togbe Afede XIV, President of the Asogli Traditional Area and former President of the National House of Chiefs, delivered the caution during the climax of the Supreme Court’s 150th-anniversary celebration in Accra on Monday. While honouring the court’s historic legacy, he used the occasion to challenge the current judicial appointment framework, particularly the lack of an upper limit on bench size.
“As a nation, we will have to support making the judiciary and the Supreme Court independent and strong. One way to do it is to take a second look at the way we appoint our justices,” Togbe Afede XIV stated. “From the beginning, they are made to be impartial.”
He specifically targeted the open-ended nature of the appointments, asserting that the unrestricted power to continuously add justices creates a fertile ground for executive interference. “The absence of an upper limit to the total number of Supreme Court judges allows adding, adding, and adding to satisfy political objectives,” he cautioned, using the colloquial repetition to underscore his concern.
The Constitutional Loophole
Under Article 128(1) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, the Supreme Court is mandated to consist of the Chief Justice and “not less than nine” other justices. While the Constitution sets a floor, it deliberately omits a ceiling, granting Parliament the legislative discretion to increase the number. Over the past decade, successive governments have exercised this power, expanding the bench significantly beyond the minimum requirement to accommodate new appointments.
Currently, the Supreme Court comprises over a dozen justices—well above the constitutional floor—yet remains statutorily limitless. This “flexibility” has increasingly drawn scrutiny from legal scholars and civil society, who argue it permits an administration to “pack” the court with loyalists to sway rulings on politically charged cases, including electoral disputes and constitutional interpretations.
A Milestone Amidst Political Tensions
The 150th anniversary celebrations, held at the Supreme Court complex in Accra, drew a host of dignitaries, including legal luminaries, government officials, and members of the Ghana Bar Association. The milestone commemorates the establishment of the court in 1876 during the British colonial era, making it one of the oldest continuously functioning judicial institutions in West Africa.
However, the celebratory atmosphere was overshadowed by the ongoing national debate over constitutional review and judicial independence. The warning from Togbe Afede XIV comes at a particularly sensitive time, as the government is set to issue a position paper on recommendations from the recent constitutional review process—a document that could propose reforms to appointment procedures.
In recent months, political tensions have simmered over the court’s potential role in interpreting presidential term limits. Although President Mahama and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) have reaffirmed their commitment to the two-term constitutional limit, other political figures have argued that the Supreme Court’s composition could one day determine the outcome of such critical national questions.
Calls for Institutional Safeguards
The Asogli Traditional leader stressed that safeguarding the credibility of the apex court requires more than just the oath of office. “True independence rests on impartiality from the moment a judge dons the robes,” he said, arguing that the current system lacks the structural barriers necessary to ensure that impartiality is maintained through the appointment process itself.
He urged a critical review of the appointment mechanism, suggesting that a fixed, constitutionally mandated number of justices—perhaps accompanied by stricter vetting procedures—would eliminate the perception that expansions are driven by political expediency rather than judicial necessity.
Legal analysts have echoed these sentiments, noting that while most democracies allow for some adjustment of court sizes, a fixed number (e.g., nine in the United States) provides a degree of stability and predictability. They argue that a cap would force the executive and legislature to agree on replacements rather than simply expanding the bench to accommodate new political allies.
A Call for Reflection
As the anniversary celebrations drew to a close, Togbe Afede XIV’s words served as a sobering reminder of the delicate balance between judicial independence and political power. He concluded by emphasising that introducing stronger safeguards around appointments is not an indictment of the current judiciary but a necessary measure to fortify it for the future.
“We must ensure that the Supreme Court remains the ultimate bastion of justice, not a reflection of the political winds of the day,” he said. “Let this anniversary be a moment of reflection, not just celebration.”
