In Part I of this paper, I examined the general issues that individuals aspiring to a judicial career must know and consider thoroughly before deciding to pursue such a path. In this concluding part, I will address the challenges that may arise after an individual has chosen to join the bench and has been duly sworn into office.

These challenges often call into question a judge's personal values and principles, prompting a self-examination of their true motivation for entering the judiciary. Frequently, these difficulties also define a judge's character and reputation. Moreover, these challenges test a judge's sincerity in adhering to their oaths to the people of Ghana, particularly the judicial oath and the oath of secrecy.

While these challenges may not universally apply to all judges in Ghana, they are experiences that some judges currently encounter, and which others may face later in their careers. Even if an individual judge does not confront these issues directly, they are likely to be aware of a colleague who has faced some or all of these challenges.

The purpose of this paper is to illuminate these challenges in the hope of fostering broader awareness and initiating a dialogue among judges, the legal community, and the public regarding effective strategies for addressing these issues.

The challenges have been categorized into five primary headings, each accompanied by relevant subheadings.

1. EXTERNAL INFLUENCES

The Call on a Judge to be Independent-Minded

The principal role of a judge is to adjudicate disputes. This involves not only addressing the initial procedural requirements for initiating a case but also attending ancillary proceedings, such as case management conferences. Once these preliminary steps have been completed, the judge is responsible for taking and evaluating evidence, making findings of fact based on that evidence, and subsequently applying the law to those findings. Through a meticulous analysis, the judge arrives at a determination regarding the case.

When referring to the determination of a case, I am specifically alluding to the issuance of a judgment. Throughout the lifespan of a case, the judge may also issue rulings on motions or applications presented by either party, which will lead to consequential orders based on such rulings.

In all these determinations, judges are expected to maintain independence of thought. The Constitution guarantees judicial independence, signifying that judges must not only be free from interference but also be expected to conduct their assessments without external influences or considerations unrelated to the evidence presented before them.

In accordance with the Judicial oath, judges pledge to perform their duties without fear or favour, affection, or ill will. This is the call to a judge on paper; however, the practical implications may lead some judges to recognize that the written stipulations often diverge significantly from reality.

INTERFERENCES

Throughout their careers, judges are likely to encounter one or more of the external interferences detailed below. How these challenges are navigated will determine whether these external interferences remain merely in the realm of attempted influence.

1. Direct and Indirect Interference from Social Circles

Throughout a judge's career, instances of interference in judicial proceedings may arise from various sources, both directly and indirectly.

It is not uncommon for family members or friends of a judge, whether consciously aware of the principles of judicial independence and the commitment to administer justice impartially, to attempt to "advocate" on behalf of one party to a case currently before the judge. In such circumstances, a judge may find it challenging to remain insulated from input, even from individuals such as their driver or court staff.

Other forms of interference may stem from religious affiliations or other personal acquaintances of the judge. While it is possible to address these interferences by informing the individuals involved of the potential repercussions of their actions, it is the intrusions from political actors and others wielding influence within judicial circles which pose a significant threat to a judge's foundational principles and values, ultimately challenging their ability to uphold the law and execute their duties without fear or favouritism.

1. Political and “Influential” Influences

When a prominent political figure or an individual with significant influence within judicial contexts seeks to intervene in a judge’s adjudication of a case, the underlying implication often suggests that failure to acquiesce to their request may result in adverse consequences.

Such consequences could include being overlooked for promotions, reassignment to a remote jurisdiction, or, in the most severe cases, experiencing reputational harm through the dissemination of falsehoods in traditional or social media, or among the judge's superiors.

There have been instances where judges have had to respond to petitions that unexpectedly contain fabricated narratives. Even if the judge is exonerated by the disciplinary committee after a hearing, the stain on their reputation coupled with the mental stress is hardly forgotten.

Judges may also encounter interference from traditional rulers within their geographical jurisdiction who have vested interests in a case. More often than not, they assert that the judge grants exceptions owing to their perceived authority over the town.

Additionally, traditional leaders from the judge's hometown may attempt to leverage their personal connections, believing that familial ties confer upon them the right to persuade the judge regarding which party to favor in ongoing proceedings.

Furthermore, it is not unusual for individuals wielding religious authority over a judge to try to counsel them on how to manage a specific case, often citing potential spiritual repercussions if the judge chooses to maintain an independent perspective.

1. Ripples and Effects

Such interferences bring to light a judge's principles and convictions. Judges, as human beings, naturally anticipate rewards for their hard work, such as promotions. In these situations, does the judge adhere to their convictions and resist the interference, fully aware of the potential consequences, or do they capitulate on this occasion to ensure that their legitimate expectations of promotion, a stable location for their family, particularly when children are involved for at least five years, among other considerations are fulfilled?

Is the judge prepared to see their colleagues promoted while they abide their own advancement? How might they explain their situation to family, friends, and well-wishers without compromising their oath of secrecy?

Is the judge willing to abruptly abandon their family and relocate to a new station following an unanticipated transfer? What would be the repercussions for the family, especially in cases where the family or spouse does not fully support the decision to join the bench?

Even with support, such transfers impact their lives, and the judge would grapple with the mental anguish of knowing their choices could impose undue hardships on their spouse and family. How does a judge manage the emotional distress that arises from unfounded allegations and attacks on their character?

When interference arises from a prominent figure within the judiciary, how does the judge navigate potential victimization? It is probable that the judge may be overlooked for training courses and conferences and may experience unforeseen delays concerning matters to which they are entitled, both personally and in their professional capacity.

Again, when the interference originates from a judge's pastor or religious leader, or from the chief of the locality where the judge is stationed or where their family originates, how should the judge respond?

Ghanaians take pride in our traditions, and showing respect for one’s chief is customary. This respect extends to our religious leaders as well. There are significant social repercussions when an individual is perceived to have "disrespected" a chief or failed to show appropriate deference to the guidance of their religious authority.

Even if a judge possesses exceptional communication and interpersonal skills, enabling them to convey that their decisions on cases must be made independently, there will inevitably be consequences for such a position.

How would the judge or their family cope with the social ostracism resulting from such an action? How would the judge address the potential for derogatory remarks that might ensue from their decision?

1. No Secret Under the Sun

Conversely, if a judge permits external influences to compromise their independence of thought, this may mark the beginning of a gradual erosion of their autonomy, leading to its complete dissolution.

A judge’s challenge is to either uphold their independence at all costs or risk losing it altogether. There is no middle ground. Thus, the notion that this compromise could occur only once is not a realistic perspective.

Information regarding a judge’s susceptibility to external influences disseminates rapidly, and it is unlikely to remain confidential for an extended period if an individual succeeds in breaching that veneer of independence. This information circulates broadly, and it is not long before other individuals or entities seek to exert influence over the judge’s decisions in various cases.

Perhaps even more concerning is the phenomenon in which individuals who have established connections with the judge proceed to commercialize this influence, effectively selling it to the highest bidder. In such scenarios, the judge inadvertently or advertently becomes the golden duck for these individuals.

This commercialization of influence is a significant factor contributing to the judiciary’s persistent low ranking in public perceptions of corruption, as evidenced by surveys such as the Mo Ibrahim Index and Afrobarometer.

Finally, a judge who succumbs to external pressures must contend with the moral implications of their actions. On what ethical basis can they justify maintaining their position when their decisions are influenced by factors external to the evidence and the law? What is the psychological burden of knowing that they have denied an individual, who is legally entitled to justice based on evidence, access to that justice?

Considering the profound impacts that court decisions have on individuals, families, organizations, and communities, how can a judge rationalize the unwarranted and undeserved suffering imposed on someone entitled to justice, merely to safeguard their personal interests at the expense of justice and fairness, which they have sworn to administer?

1. A Person of Proven Integrity and High Moral Character

The dilemma of whether to uphold independent judgment or acquiesce to external pressures presents a formidable challenge. Judges faced with this challenge must weigh considerable factors, as they navigate a complex decision-making process that pits personal and familial interests against their sworn judicial oath, as well as their individual values and principles.

The decision-making process is often fraught with anxiety, characterized by sleepless nights and deep contemplation. A fundamental characteristic of a judge is the possession of proven integrity and high moral character. Such circumstances inevitably test this integrity and moral standing, posing significant ethical dilemmas.

2.0. SOCIAL RECLUSIVENESS

Some judges, particularly those with outgoing personalities and extroverted tendencies, may come to recognize that the judicial role necessitates a degree of social reclusiveness. In court, judges sit facing the gallery and the bar.

By virtue of this, they are constantly in the public eye and easily recognizable by court users and lawyers outside the courtroom. This subjects them to scrutiny, with even their most basic actions often facing intense examination and potential misinterpretation.

2.1. Mundane Activities Take on a Different Interpretation

Consider a scenario in which a judge, upon being posted to a station, consistently patronizes a particular grocery store. With time, mischievous litigants who become aware of this fact may begin to make frequent purchases from the same establishment, deliberately timing their visits to coincide with the judge’s.

If these litigants greet the judge and he or she reciprocates, it may be reported that the judge maintains a friendship with the litigant in question and this will raise issues of bias. Conversely, if the judge chooses not to respond to such greetings, the mere fact of shared patronage at the grocery store could lead to rumors suggesting potential favoritism or collusion, thereby creating an unfair mental advantage for the litigant.

Additionally, it would not be uncommon for the judge to learn from the cashier that "someone" has already paid for their groceries. The likelihood of that “someone” being a party involved in a case before the judge, or being connected to such a party, is significantly heightened.

A judge faced with this challenge may employ various options to deal with this- ranging from changing shops frequently, to arranging delivery or sending someone else to make the purchases. The cumulative effect of this is that the judge will ultimately lose the privilege of engaging in mundane acts if care is not taken.

2.2. Wariness in Attending Social Functions

This situation extends beyond grocery shopping to various social gatherings, including religious meetings, funerals, weddings, birthday celebrations, and other events involving friends and acquaintances of the judge or their family members. To mitigate these complications, a judge who is naturally outgoing may face the unavoidable challenge of becoming increasingly reclusive in social settings. This is a challenge that is far from trivial.

2.3. An opening: Social Engagement among Judges

One potential avenue for mitigating reclusiveness is for judges to participate in social programs involving their peers when opportunities arise. Additionally, judges may engage in social events organized by family, friends or other acquaintances, albeit for limited durations, provided they communicate their reasons for departing early to the host.

The implications of public perception are not to be underestimated; one can easily imagine the sensational headlines accompanying an image of a judge reveling with an alcoholic beverage, dancing exuberantly to a favorite song, whether on social media or in print media.

My intention is not to deter extroverts from pursuing a judicial career. In fact, some extroverted individuals, upon assuming the role of a judge, find value in the tranquility of the position, as it allows for introspection and contemplation of various life aspects.

Conversely, introverts, who might be expected to thrive in a judicial environment, occasionally discover dissatisfaction with their inability to, once a while, indulge in leisure activities without self-regulation.

2.4. The Perpetual Nature of Judicial Work

Another contributing factor to the reclusive tendencies of judges is the ceaseless nature of their responsibilities, which lack fixed start and end times. Frequently, judges find themselves taking work home; anecdotal evidence exists of judges hastily exiting the bathroom, soap suds still on their bodies, to jot down thoughts, legal analysis, or findings that have occurred to them while reflecting on their cases.

This phenomenon stems from the persistent focus judges maintain on their cases, which can occupy their thoughts even during personal moments. It is a common refrain among judges that, much like parental care, one never truly ceases to consider a case until it is resolved and they are functus officio. It is not uncommon for judges to draft judgments during nighttime, weekends, and holidays.

2.5. The Toll on Family Life

The primary challenge posed by this lack of temporal boundaries is its impact on family life. Occupational therapists emphasize the importance of achieving a balance between professional obligations and family responsibilities to prevent one domain from adversely affecting the other—a concept popularly referred to as work-life balance.

Judges may confront the dilemma of deciding between disengaging mentally from a case, particularly when unresolved issues persist, and being present for their families, both nuclear and extended. There is no universal solution to this challenge; the experience may vary significantly depending on the individual circumstances of judges, particularly those working in courts with a limited caseload.

2.6. Security Concerns for Judges

Judges universally contend with security challenges due to the inherent risks associated with their roles. However, some may face unique security concerns that differ from their peers. Judicial decisions significantly influence the lives of individuals, their families, and professional entities, as well as political figures and governmental bodies. Consequently, those who receive unfavourable rulings may exhibit displeasure toward the judge, thereby creating potential security threats.

In certain instances, individuals have been observed to transfer their dissatisfaction into animus directed towards judges, accompanied by a palpable intent to cause harm to them in various capacities. This phenomenon underscores the necessity for the state to provide police escorts for judges.

Frequently, judges of the lower courts and some judges of the High Court reside within the communities they serve, with their residences being well-known among local inhabitants. This familiarity further heightens security concerns for judges. Nonetheless, when there is a need for enhanced security relating to judges’ professional duties, the Ghana Police Service often rises to the occasion.

2.7. One Can Never Be Too Careful

Despite the provision of security measures for judges, it remains imperative for them to take personal precautions to safeguard their lives. Judge must exercise vigilance regarding their dietary choices and social interactions, as well as the individuals with whom they engage. This caution is one reason judges tend to limit their social circles; a reduced group of acquaintances enhances the ability to ensure personal security.

However, this strategy does not constitute a foolproof security measure. There have been instances in which unscrupulous individuals affiliated with a judge have divulged confidential information regarding the judge’s schedule, contact details, residence, and family members for personal gain.

It is not uncommon for an accused individual awaiting trial before a judge and/or their family member, or in extreme scenarios, a person who has been sentenced by that judge, to procure such personal information with the intent of orchestrating harm against the judge.

3.0. SOCIAL FALLOUT

It is not uncommon for an individual to lose their friends upon becoming a judge. The loss is usually a gradual one, and if one does not recognize the challenge and manage it, one may realize, after many years, the loss of many good friends and companies one used to keep before their judicial career. The social fallout is due to many factors, and I will proceed to discuss a few below.

3.1. A Bane: The Interconnectedness of Communities in Ghana

Judges may encounter social repercussions as a consequence of their judicial roles. Given the communal nature of Ghanaian society and the reality that judges may have classmates and acquaintances from their formative years, it is typical for individuals known to a judge to present before them in court. In circumstances where such individuals are close friends or well-known community members, the judge is obliged to recuse themselves from the matter. If the relationship does not warrant recusal, the judge must navigate the potential fallout stemming from the parties' expectations.

3.2. Perception over Facts- Inevitable Loss of Friendship

I will illustrate this concept with a narrative. A judge, upon discovering that one of the parties involved in a land dispute was a close family friend from her childhood, publicly acknowledged this relationship in open court when the case was called. She elucidated that due to this connection, she had recused herself and that the supervising high court judge would reassign the case to another judge.

She emphasized that if she were to preside over the matter, it could raise concerns about potential bias in favour of her friend, which might result in a certiorari to annul any decision she rendered. She articulated her commitment to ensuring public trust in the judicial process, asserting that justice must not only be achieved but also perceived as being achieved.

Additionally, she aimed to prevent the parties from incurring unnecessary expenses through re-litigation, should her decision be overturned; thus, she opted to recuse herself.

Upon returning home, the judge received a telephone call from her close friend, who expressed anger and disappointment over the judge’s decision. The friend contended that her adversaries interpreted the judge’s recusal as an indication of her wrongdoing, suggesting that this was the reason her friend, the judge, had declined to hear the case.

Subsequently, the judge’s parents were approached by the family of her friend, questioning why the judge had chosen to bring disgrace upon their daughter and, by extension, their entire family, after their long-standing friendship. It is worth noting that both the friend and her family are highly educated; however, this background did little to facilitate their understanding of the judge's rationale for her recusal as articulated in court. In this instance, public perception prevailed.

As a result, the close relationship between the judge and her friend deteriorated, leading their families to no longer regard one another as family friends. This painful estrangement is a burden the judge must bear, solely as a consequence of her adherence to her professional responsibilities.

3.3. The Bar and The Bench: Classmates for Life Separated by Their Legal Roles

Another challenge that may precipitate social discord for a judge arises in the context of interactions with former classmates who are practising lawyers appearing before them. Should the judge offer an unusually wide smile, indicative of their prior relationship, and inform those present in the courtroom that the lawyer was their classmate, or should the judge maintain an impartial demeanour, listening to the lawyer’s submissions as if they were encountering them for the first time, solely in their capacity as a courtroom participant?

Opting for the latter approach may result in the lawyer feeling disregarded. After all, classmates often engage in casual conversation whenever possible. Moreover, it is essential to consider that this lawyer may, at some point, seek an appointment to the bench and become the judge's colleague.

Employing the former approach implies that if the judge rules in favour of the client represented by a fellow lawyer who is also their classmate, the opposing lawyer, their client, and observers in the courtroom may perceive favouritism or personal affection as influencing the decision. This perception could negatively impact the public image of the judiciary, ultimately diminishing public confidence in its integrity.

3.4. Keeping and Maintaining Friendships

Judges take an oath of secrecy, prohibiting them from disclosing any matters encountered in the course of their judicial duties. These matters include the diverse cases a judge adjudicates. Given that judges handle a wide range of cases stemming from various human interactions, they may encounter situations where it would be beneficial to share thoughts with a colleague to navigate challenges effectively.

As most judges have a background in law, it is common for them to have close and knowledgeable friends who remain practising lawyers.

However, due to the oath of secrecy, a judge cannot freely discuss these challenges with such a friend, regardless of that friend's expertise. If judges do not consciously maintain these friendships outside of legal discourse, they risk losing these important connections.

This dynamic also extends to other friendships. Some acquaintances may desire insights into courtroom proceedings, interpreting the judge’s discretion in sharing information as aloofness.

Given the societal prestige associated with the role of a judge, these friends may perceive the judge’s new position as leading to a sense of superiority or “too known”, subsequently distancing themselves from the relationship.

4.0 CULTURE

Like all human institutions, the judiciary possesses its own unique culture, characterized predominantly by silence. A new judge may experience a rude awakening upon realizing that within the judiciary, there exists a culture of silence, regardless of the unfairness they may endure. The challenge lies in deciding whether to conform to this culture of silence or to speak out and risk being perceived as overly assertive.

4.1. Top-Down Approach

The legal profession places a premium on seniority; however, the judiciary is particularly defined by it. There exists a significant demarcation in the interactions between a magistrate and a Superior Court judge.

It is commonly understood that the shared responsibility of adjudicating cases does not equate to a collegial relationship. Chief Justice (retd) Sophia Akuffo made attempts to bridge this divide and promote a sense of camaraderie and mentorship between young judges and senior judges, albeit with limited success.

Similarly, the relationship between a judge and the Chief Justice is often characterized by hierarchical dynamics, resembling that of a superior and subordinate, with minimal cordiality. It is common for a judge who exhibits boldness in court to experience anxiety when summoned to meet with the Chief Justice, despite having no comprehension of any wrongdoing.

This anxiety stems from the potential for such meetings to be one-sided, with the judge afforded little opportunity to defend themselves in response to the reasons for their summons.

4.2. Mistakes Are Louder Than Success

Some judges may come to recognize that within the judiciary, there is seldom any reward for a job well done. Instead, there is a significant reprimand for even minor mistakes. This fosters a climate of fear and timidity between administrative heads and judges.

Consequently, some judges feel compelled to maintain “best behaviour” and second-guess their communications with colleagues, unable to ascertain whether their peers advocate for silence or are inclined to speak up, and critically, who their colleagues' senior "associates" on the bench may be.

As a result, some judges opt to perform their duties in silence, retreating to their corners and enduring hardships—including inadequate facilities—rather than reporting these issues to the Chief Justice or their Supervising High Court Judge, fearing the label of being overly insistent.

4.3. No Matter the Cost

Some judges choose to voice their concerns regardless of the potential repercussions, actively contacting or writing to the Chief Justice or their Supervising High Court Judge regarding matters that affect them and diligently following up for responses. These judges may find camaraderie among others who share similar inclinations; however, some may hesitate to publicly associate with them due to fears of being similarly characterized.

Being labelled as too assertive is detrimental within an institution that thrives on seniority and adherence to systemic expectations. Assertiveness can be perceived as defiance, potentially resulting in adverse consequences such as delayed promotions, unanticipated transfers, and exclusion from opportunities to attend significant events.

Moreover, this assertiveness often brings heightened scrutiny from administrative heads. In an environment where resources are scarce, those who assert themselves may be overlooked for entitlements under the pretext of resource limitations.

5.0 MENTAL HEALTH

Finally, I will address the issue of mental health challenges. Judges routinely hear distressing accounts of crime from victims and analyze visual evidence that can be deeply traumatising. Such evidence may include instances of abuse, whether domestic or otherwise, physical harm inflicted with weapons or corrosive substances, as well as disturbing cases of defilement, robbery, and visuals of deceased individuals who have died under unnatural circumstances.

In matrimonial disputes and estate issues, judges are often confronted with the darker and more dysfunctional aspects of human relationships. Some judges may feel compelled to rise and retreat to their chambers to manage their emotions and compose themselves when they encounter a piece of evidence that is too distressing to endure in silence.

5.1 Occupational Hazard

Research has demonstrated that prolonged exposure to such evidence may lead to secondary traumatization; this phenomenon becomes particularly concerning for individual judges who have previously experienced trauma, as they may be retraumatized through continued exposure.

Also, the challenges discussed earlier in this paper, along with numerous additional issues not addressed herein, are sufficient to contribute to mental health problems for many a judges. Consequently, some or all judges may experience mental health challenges, a reality that, like the concerns related to security, is regarded as an occupational hazard.

Historically, mental health challenges were often regarded as stigmatizing, leading many individuals to suffer in silence without seeking help. However, it appears that with increasing education and awareness, this stigma is gradually diminishing.

5.2. Pragmatism

The Judicial Service, in taking pragmatic measures to address this issue, has established a partnership with an institution specializing in clinical psychology, thereby providing judges with access to therapeutic services at no personal cost.

5.3. Effectiveness

Therapeutic engagement is inherently personal and confidential, necessitating that individuals feel comfortable with their therapists for therapy to be effective. Whether judges would feel at ease participating in therapy with a psychiatrist provided by their employers, particularly when some of the issues contributing to the decline in their mental health arise from the actions or inactions of the employer, as opposed to selecting a therapist of their own choosing, remains an issue worthy of further exploration.

It remains worthy of recommendation that when judges are faced with this challenge, they have access to help without having to consider the associated costs.

CONCLUSION

The challenges elucidated in this paper are significant, and any judge who encounters them would undoubtedly face dilemmas and extensive deliberations prior to making a decision.

However, these challenges are not exhaustive of the obstacles that judges may encounter on their judicial journey. There are additional challenges that have not been addressed in this paper, as well as numerous others that may not have been considered.

It is my aspiration that this paper will stimulate dialogue among judges and other pertinent stakeholders, ultimately leading to solutions for some, if not all, of these challenges.

It is anticipated that the majority of individuals who assume judicial positions do so with a fervent commitment to administering justice and contributing to a just and safe society characterized by the rule of law.

In as much as they may face some challenges, all efforts must be made to reduce these challenges so that all judges can focus on their core mandate, which is to deliver justice to the good people of Ghana without fear or favour, affection, or ill will. 

END

My forthcoming article will focus on judicial reforms. I have appreciated the opportunity to write this paper, and I hope it will be of some relevance to those considering a career in the judiciary in Ghana.

The judiciary consistently requires individuals of integrity and high moral character to fulfil the role of Lady Justice. These individuals need to make informed decisions regarding their career paths to avoid future regrets. Should you find this paper engaging, I encourage you to stay tuned for my next article.

******

The writer is a judge and an alumna of Harvard Law School. Aniagyeiakua@gmail.com.