Franklin Cudjoe, President of IMANI Africa, has delivered a strong critique of Ghana’s judicial system, voicing his dissatisfaction with several recent rulings.

His remarks come in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse Speaker Alban Bagbin’s declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant.

In an interview with Channel One TV on Saturday, 16th November, Mr Cudjoe accused the judiciary of becoming increasingly entangled in politics, suggesting that it is being used as a tool for political manipulation.

He expressed grave concerns over what he perceives as a growing partiality within the legal system.

Cudjoe called upon Chief Justice, Her Ladyship Gertrude Torkornoo, to uphold the integrity of the judiciary in future rulings.

He emphasised the need for greater impartiality, noting that the current perception of bias was damaging the credibility of the judicial system.

“The real issue lies in the way we conduct our politics in this region,” said Mr Cudjoe. “In my view, the judiciary, in this case and several others, has unfortunately become a playground for politicians. It is a matter of disappointment, and I hope they will work to restore their credibility swiftly.”

He went on to urge the Chief Justice to take decisive action to ensure the impartiality of the courts. “It is troubling to have nearly 70% of the country’s population believing the judiciary is biased. This situation is unfair and unbecoming. I would count myself among that 70%, perhaps even at the forefront of it,” Cudjoe remarked.

On Tuesday, 12th November, the Supreme Court overruled the Speaker of Parliament’s decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant. This verdict was in response to a challenge from Majority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin.

The Court’s detailed ruling, delivered on Thursday, 14th November, clarified that a parliamentary seat could only be declared vacant if a Member of Parliament switches parties while still holding office.

However, two justices disagreed, arguing that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the matter, revealing a significant divide over the Court’s role in such cases.