Former Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Dominic Ayine has slammed organizers of the 2018 GIMPA Law Conference for gathering Supreme Court Judges and Academicians to dissect a research work which is critical of the judges.
According to him, the situation the judges found themselves during that event which led to them publicly reacting to the findings was not the best.
Chief Justice, Sophia Akufo and respected Justices of the Supreme Court publicly expressed their disapproval about a research work seeking to establish the political leanings of judges of the highest court of the land.
The research, conducted by renowned law Professor, Raymond Atuguba, sought to establish that the voting pattern of judges of the Supreme Court was influenced by the political party that appointed them.
Presenting his findings on Thursday at the 2018 GIMPA Law Conference where the Supreme Court judges had gathered, Prof Atuguba explained that he analysed one hundred political cases in Ghana and found that the voting patterns of the justices favoured the parties which appointed them.
“It is not a coincidence that this happened…and it will soon be discovered by the general populace and it may be too late then to gain public trust and respect for the court. The time to act is now,” Prof Atuguba urged.
But Prof Atuguba’s findings scraped nerves and seem to have angered the revered justices of the apex court.
Chief Justice, Sophia Akuffo, described the research as alien to Ghana.
“It is an American type of research that you have done…that’s fine, but please be careful what you are importing into our environment. They [Americans] are used to that, we are not. I don’t think there was a single judge who agreed with what you were saying,” she said.
Justice Jones Dotse on his part was even more critical of the findings saying the entire research is an affront to the judges.
“You are entitled to your views,” he tells Prof Atugaba, adding, “I think it is an insult of the highest order.”
Speaking on the issue on News File on Joy FM, Dr Ayine stated that the programme has put the Judges in a tight corner in respect of their work.
“You don’t put Judges and Academics in the same room, I think the organizers of the programme goofed big time by putting the Judges and the Academics in the same room dissecting topics that were critical of the Judges. Because what then happens ultimately is what we saw where you have public reactions by the Judges to the findings of an Academician. At the end of the day their reaction will become a matter of public debate and this is where we’ve found ourselves now. If a matter goes before them which relates in anyway to what Prof. Atuguba has said, people will now be watching them to see where they’ll rule and I don’t think that, that was a good thing to do.”