SORRY, BUT JUDICIAL THUG JUSTICE ATUGUBA HAS NO LESSONS TO IMPART ON SOBRIETY AND IMPARTIALITY

What goes around, has a funny way of coming back around. I have heard Mr. Justice Atuguba complaining about
last week’s decision by the Supreme Court of Ghana, on the four controversial parliamentary seats.
Justice Atuguba believes that the decision was wrong, and that the judiciary has been politicized. In a way, I agree
with him. Like many others, I believe that the decision would go down in history and academia as one of the
occasions when Ghana’s Judiciary was less than distinguished.
In my opinion, even simple common sense could have predicted the acceptable outcome. People are voted to
parliament as members of political parties, or as independents. If that situation changes, then they should lose their
seats in parliament.
The question that I have posed anytime I am engaged with the question, is whether, for instance, Alan Kyeremateng
is a member of the NPP.
His case is classic. He was a member of the NPP, who broke paths with the party. He has evinced a decision to
become President, at a future date. The NPP has never issued a statement admitting that he was now not a member
of the party.
Now, assuming that Alan Kyeremateng was an MP, who came to parliament through the NPP. By the reasoning of
the Supreme Court, Alan Kyeremateng should still remain in parliament as an NPP Member, because his intentions
to become President, is in the future, if at all.
The decision by the Supreme Court to interpret Article 97 in this way, is a true betrayal of the 1992 Constitution,
and I have every belief that it is not a ruling that the five judges who emitted them, would be proud of in future and
in posterity.
Unfortunately, one can say that this ruling was predictable. It was not unique. On many occasions in the past, when
the court was tested in similar controversial circumstances, it failed to deliver the expected.
We can refer to some cases. For instance, we can refer to the case of Richard Anane. We can refer to the case of
Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare vrs the Attorney-General (Writ No: J1/20/2015) on the question of the swearing in
of the Speaker when both the President and Vice President are out of the country.
We can also refer to the Presidential Election Petition, in 2013, eleven years ago. And many more. It seems that
whenever the Supreme Court is tested on highly controversial matters, and the government of the day has an
interest, without fail, the Supreme Court is likely to adopt the point of view of the government of the day.
In that sense, the Court has never been able to grow into its own, to become the formidable institution it can truly be.
For instance, the Supreme Court would have come into true awe, if it had unseated election stealer John Mahama in
2013. That would have demonstrated the extreme might of the Court, but unfortunately, that was not to be, and one
of the judges who engineered and ensured that gruesome disgrace on the Supreme Court, was Mr. Justice Atuguba.
A friend of mine is a senior lawyer, and he often makes the point that in spite of the months of televised sittings, the
Election Petition Hearing will go down into the garbage cans as one of the less distinguished moments of Ghana’s
Judiciary; and he was right.
And the reason why, is primarily because of the judicial thug called Justice William Atuguba, who Ghana had the
misfortune of him presiding over such a sensitive trial.
I do not need to rehash the events of eleven years ago. Almost all adults who lived in Ghana at the time, however,
saw it on television as Atuguba fulminated, belched and breathed red flames of fire, screamed and ranted about the
‘awful’ might of the Supreme Court, all so that he can partake of the eventual fraud that was perpetrated on
Ghanaians as the judgment of that Court.
We will not take any moral lessons on constitutionality, rule of law and proper conduct from this judicial thug.
He had his opportunity, eleven years ago. And the image, the lasting impression he left on the minds of Ghanaians,
was that the Supreme Court was a place where a screeching crow like him presided, and where the dreams of
millions of Ghanaians can be crushed with over-voting.
Is it not ironic, indeed, that a Judge who took part in a process where only Supreme Court judges participated but
where we ended up one judge voting twice on an issue, would be the one to preach to us about virtue?
The Supreme Court failed in this instance, but the one who should be preaching to us, certainly is not William
Atuguba.
(PERISCOPE DEPTH on Monday, 18 th November, 2024. PERISCOPE DEPTH is published every Monday in the
Daily Searchlight).