A Justice of Ghana’s Supreme Court, Justice Richard Adjei-Frimpong, has offered a compelling insight into why the apex court is often described as a “policy court,” emphasising its far-reaching influence on national development through constitutional interpretation.

Speaking on The Law on JoyNews as part of discussions marking the Supreme Court's 150th anniversary, Justice Adjei-Frimpong explained that the Court’s role goes beyond merely settling disputes—it actively shapes how the law responds to the evolving needs of society.

According to him, the Supreme Court is uniquely positioned as the sole authority mandated to interpret the Constitution.

While lower courts may apply constitutional provisions, only the apex court can definitively determine their meaning. This interpretative power, he noted, places the Court at the center of national decision-making on critical legal and social questions.

"When we say it [Supreme Court] is a policy court, it is a court which is able, through the tool of interpretation, to interpret provisions of the Constitution or statutes… to meet a particular need of society.”

He further highlighted another defining feature: the Court’s ability to depart from its own previous decisions. Unlike lower courts bound strictly by precedent, the Supreme Court retains the flexibility to revisit and revise its rulings where necessary. This allows it to adapt the law to changing circumstances and societal demands.

“It is a court with some flexibility… to meet the needs of society,” he indicated, underscoring that such discretion is what gives the Court its policy dimension.

To illustrate, Justice Adjei-Frimpong referenced the landmark case of FEDAC v. Public Universities. In that case, an NGO challenged the introduction of fee-paying admissions in public universities, arguing that it violated constitutional provisions on free education.

The Supreme Court, however, took a broader view. It considered the economic realities of funding tertiary education, the limited capacity of public institutions, and the need to expand access. The Court concluded that allowing fee-paying students was a pragmatic solution that enabled more qualified applicants to gain admission, rather than restricting access due to financial constraints.

In doing so, Justice Adjei-Frimpong explained, the Court was not merely interpreting the law in isolation—it was balancing constitutional ideals with practical governance needs, a hallmark of a policy-oriented court.

He also pointed to the Court’s progressive stance on locus standi, which allows individuals or organizations without a direct personal stake to bring cases in the public interest. This, he said, strengthens constitutional enforcement and positions the Court as a guardian of broader societal rights.

Ultimately, Justice Adjei-Frimpong stressed that describing the Supreme Court as a “policy court” reflects its ability to use interpretation as a tool to shape outcomes that impact national life, ensuring that the Constitution remains relevant in a changing world.