Franklin Cudjoe: Judiciary now a ‘Playground for Politicians’

0
President for IMANI Africa Franklin Cudjoe (L) making a point at an event
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Franklin Cudjoe, President of IMANI Africa, has expressed strong criticism of Ghana’s judiciary, lamenting what he perceives as a decline in its impartiality following several recent rulings.

His remarks came after the Supreme Court overturned Speaker Alban Bagbin’s declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant. Speaking on Channel One TV’s political program The Big Issue, Cudjoe accused the judiciary of becoming a tool for political manipulation, voicing concerns over its growing politicization.

“The real issue has to do with the way we do our politics in this part of our world,” Cudjoe said. “Frankly speaking, my reading of the judiciary, unfortunately, in this particular case and a few of the cases, they have become like a playground for politicians.”

He did not hold back in expressing his disappointment, urging Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo to take swift action to restore public confidence in the judiciary. “I think it’s a disappointment. I hope that they will redeem themselves quickly, and the Chief Justice should put her house in order. Frankly speaking, it is not right to have almost 70% of the populace of the country say you are biased. It is not fair. It’s not pretty at all, and I think I’m part of that 70%. Maybe I’m on top of the 70% right now,” he added.

The controversy stems from the Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday, November 12, which nullified Speaker Bagbin’s earlier decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant. The ruling was in response to a legal challenge brought by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin.

In their judgment issued on Thursday, November 14, five of the justices ruled that a parliamentary seat could only be declared vacant if a sitting MP switches political parties while still in office. They also stated that the Speaker’s decision would not take effect during the current parliamentary term.

However, the ruling was not unanimous. Two justices dissented, arguing that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, highlighting differing interpretations of the Court’s authority on such matters.

 

GOT A STORY?
Email Daily Mail GH: stories@dailymailgh.com or
Whatsapp: +233(0)509928122


LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here