Retired Supreme Court Justice William Atuguba has defended the composition of the Supreme Court panel that recently delivered a 3-2 ruling in a case involving suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.

According to him, the outcome might have been different if the panel had not been reconstituted.

In an exclusive interview with JoyNews’ Elton Brobbey, Justice Atuguba questioned the New Patriotic Party's (NPP) sincerity in protesting the Chief Justice’s suspension and dismissed Godfred Dame’s objection to the acting Chief Justice presiding over the case as unfounded and unprecedented.

“Look at the empanelment. If that panel had not been reconstituted, do you think we would have seen a 3–2 decision? For how long have we seen nothing but unanimous decisions, one after the other, always in their favour—until now?” he asked in the yet-to-be aired interview on The Pulse.

Justice Atuguba suggested that consistent, unanimous rulings during Chief Justice Torkornoo’s tenure were suspicious and pointed to a deeper issue of political bias in the judiciary.

"What is the impression there? So long as Justice Torkonoo puts panels that give you unanimous decisions in their favour, that is justice, isn't it?  Why is the NPP championing this course like that?" he asked, accusing the NPP of promoting a one-sided democratic structure. “That’s the democracy they want to entrench? That’s rubbish. You are ordaining a dictatorship in disguise.”

Referencing comments by National Security Minister Albert Kan-Dapaah, who once acknowledged that courts sometimes balance decisions in the interest of national stability, Justice Atuguba called him “an honest man”—but questioned the implication.

“If the courts are truly implementing the law, why would he feel the need to say that? What was making him apprehensive?” he asked. “Public perception? The trend of unanimous rulings? Wasn’t that happening?”

He further criticised the NPP’s moral authority to question the current judicial process. “When they were in office, did they act transparently? Neutrally? In the interest of the people? I hate this kind of pure hypocrisy,” he fumed.