Supreme Court nominee Justice Edward Amoako Asante has rejected suggestions that his nomination may have been influenced by an individual who played a significant role in his elevation, insisting that he has no knowledge of anyone who may have facilitated his appointment.

Appearing before Parliament’s Appointments Committee on Thursday, August 27, Justice Amoako Asante said his nomination followed the constitutional process and was based on his qualifications and experience.

“I know that. I’m a judge of the Court of Appeal, and I qualify to be at the Supreme Court. I’m 35 years old as a lawyer. I’ve worked as a judge for over 20 years, and therefore I qualify by the Constitution,” he said.

He was responding to a question on whether he would recuse himself from a case involving a person who had played a significant role in his elevation if the circumstances created a reasonable perception of conflict of interest.

Justice Amoako Asante said the relevant constitutional and institutional processes had been followed before his nomination, including consultations and advice from the Judicial Council and the Council of State.

“The Judicial Service has given its advice, Judicial Council has given its advice, Council of State has been consulted, and now I am here pending your approval,” he stated.

He therefore said he was unaware of any particular individual whose influence had contributed to his nomination.

“The President knows, of course, in consultation, on the advice of the Judicial Council, knows that I qualify. That’s why I’ve been appointed. And therefore I don’t know who did that,” he added.

On the issue of judicial recusal, Justice Amoako Asante said a judge must step aside from a case where personal knowledge of an individual creates a genuine concern about bias or affects the judge’s ability to act impartially.

He explained that where a judge knows an individual involved in a case very well, the judge’s conscience should guide the decision on whether recusal is necessary.

“It is clear that when the matter involves an individual whom you think you know very well, as a judge, if your conscience doesn’t serve you well, you just recuse from it,” he said.

However, he noted that not every case involving someone a judge knows personally would necessarily require recusal.

He said judges are sometimes required to determine general legal or constitutional matters that may indirectly involve people they know, and such circumstances would not automatically prevent them from performing their judicial duties.

Justice Amoako Asante assured the committee that, if approved, he would approach cases with the impartiality expected of a Supreme Court Justice and recuse himself where the circumstances genuinely required it.