The founder of the think tank IMANI Africa, Franklin Cudjoe, has sharply criticised the Supreme Court, accusing it of hypocrisy and bias in handling cases of disenfranchisement.

Mr Cudjoe’s criticism follows the Court’s recent decision to support four constituencies whose MPs had reportedly abandoned their constituents for nearly four years, contrasting it with the Court’s handling of the SALL (Santrokofi, Akpafu, Likpe, and Lolobi) case.

Mr Cudjoe contends that the SALL constituency was unjustly ignored by the Court, leading to a prolonged lack of representation and development despite their obligation to pay taxes.

“I am so shocked at the level of hypocrisy and double standards displayed by the Supreme Court today,” Cudjoe stated, highlighting the Chief Justice’s apparent “investment in the representation of constituents” whose MPs had neglected them for other political parties.

Franklin Cudjoe expressed his astonishment at the Court’s “lavish and shameless display” of protection for these constituencies, while SALL’s urgent plea for representation was met with indifference.

In 2020, the people of SALL were effectively disenfranchised, unable to participate in parliamentary elections due to an alleged electoral oversight, which they brought to the Supreme Court.

“We had gone to the Supreme Court to expeditiously protect our rights that had been violated,” Mr Cudjoe recalled, adding that instead of addressing their concerns directly, the Court “discarded us and dispatched us to the High Court to ‘try our luck’.”

The subsequent ruling in the High Court—after three years of litigation—declared it had no jurisdiction, leaving SALL residents without representation for nearly four years.

Franklin Cudjoe’s frustration was palpable as he described the systemic neglect SALL has endured.

“For four years, we have been rendered orphans and ostracized by the system,” he noted, underscoring the community’s frustration with paying taxes and yet seeing no developmental efforts or accountability from the state.

"SALL’s appeal to the Superior Court remains pending, but Cudjoe expressed scepticism, particularly given the Supreme Court’s “contrived, shambolic display of ‘politically biased’ support for some Ghanaians.”

Mr Cudjoe went further to question the Court’s expedited treatment of the case involving the four constituencies, where it ruled on an ex parte motion to ensure MPs’ salaries and benefits would be impacted by their neglect.

“What was so special about the four constituencies whose MPs had abandoned them?” he asked.

For him, the Court’s actions were indicative of “judicial terrorism aided by legal plunder,” wherein certain cases are given preferential treatment based on political interests.

Franklin Cudjoe’s statement exposes a deeply felt frustration over what he perceives as a politicised judicial system, one that he argues operates with a troubling inconsistency in upholding democratic rights.