The People’s Alliance for Governance and Accountability (PAGA) has called for the resignation of Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, accusing him of compromising the independence and political neutrality of the Judiciary through his recent tours of state-owned institutions, including the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF) and the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT).

During his tour on Wednesday, September 2, he said, “I must congratulate you. I mean, you have done marvellously well. Sometimes, when we hear about the things that you have done and the things that some organisations are doing now, we wonder. Some of us keep wondering what we really have been doing in the past eight years.”

At SNNIT he mentioned that: “We’ve just come back from SSNIT… if you compare that with the fact that, not too long ago, SSNIT was preparing to sell its prized assets like the Labadi Beach Hotel, you wonder how Ghana could have sunk so low.”

In reaction to his remarks, PAGA in a statement dated September , the group said the Chief Justice’s public comments praising the performance of institutions under the current government, while appearing to criticise the record of the previous administration, create an appearance of bias and undermine public confidence in his ability to lead an impartial Judiciary.

PAGA said the conduct could also create a conflict of interest should disputes involving the institutions he visited come before the courts, and urged him to resign or face the constitutional processes available under Article 146.

Read below PAGA's full stament:

1. The People’s Alliance for Governance and Accountability (PAGA) is deeply troubled by the decision of the Chief Justice, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, to tour state-owned institutions, including the Minerals Income Investment Fund and the Social Security and National Insurance Trust, and to make public comments praising their current performance.

2. During his visit to MIIF, the Chief Justice reportedly questioned what Ghana had been doing over the previous eight years. This was not a neutral comment about judicial administration. It was a political assessment of the record of a previous government and an endorsement of institutions operating under the present government.

3. The Chief Justice is not a government spokesperson, development commissioner or supervisor of state-owned enterprises. He is the head of the Judiciary. His primary duty is to protect the courts, improve justice delivery and preserve public trust in the independence of judges.

4. Articles 125 and 127 of the 1992 Constitution establish the Judiciary as an independent arm of government. This independence must be real and visible. A Chief Justice who tours institutions controlled by the Executive and publicly praises their performance weakens the distance that should exist between the Judiciary and the political administration of the state.

5. There may be nothing improper about the Chief Justice meeting public officials on matters affecting the courts. The problem arises when such visits become tours of government institutions and are followed by comments that appear to praise one administration while condemning the record of another. That crosses a dangerous line.

6. MIIF, SSNIT and other state institutions may become parties to cases before the courts. Their decisions, investments, contracts and use of public funds may be challenged by citizens, workers, pensioners, companies or political actors. How can

8. those parties be confident of an impartial hearing when the head of the Judiciary has already praised the performance of the institutions concerned?

9. Justice must be delivered without fear, favour or political attachment. It must also be seen to be delivered in that manner. The test is not limited to whether the Chief Justice believes he can remain impartial. The public must be able to look at his conduct and reasonably trust that no party has received favour or gained privileged access.

10. These visits create a serious appearance of bias and a possible conflict of interest. Should a dispute involving any of these institutions reach the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice’s previous praise may become an issue. This is an avoidable burden on the Judiciary and an unnecessary threat to the credibility of future proceedings.

11. Ghana’s courts already face delays, overcrowded dockets, poor infrastructure, limited access outside the major cities and declining public confidence. The Chief Justice should be leading a national effort to address these problems. Touring state-owned enterprises and passing judgment on the performance of governments does nothing to reduce the suffering of citizens waiting years for justice.

12. Former Chief Justices maintained the restraint, distance and dignity required by the office. We are unaware of any Chief Justice in the Fourth Republic who embarked on such tours and publicly assessed the comparative performance of state institutions under competing political administrations. Justice Baffoe-Bonnie is lowering the standard of an office that must remain above partisan politics.

13. His conduct also raises a wider question of trust. A Chief Justice who publicly praises institutions associated with the Executive cannot expect citizens to ignore the perception created by his own words and actions. Confidence in the courts cannot be commanded. It must be earned through restraint, fairness and visible independence.

14. PAGA has therefore lost confidence in Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie’s judgment and ability to protect the political neutrality of the office of Chief Justice. His conduct does not inspire confidence in his leadership of the Judiciary.

15. The Chief Justice’s conduct creates the disturbing impression that he is sacrificing the independence of his office to gain favour with the Executive, in pursuit of recognition or a future appointment to the Council of State after his retirement.

16. We call on Justice Baffoe-Bonnie to resign as Chief Justice in the interest of the Judiciary and the Republic. If he refuses to resign, the bodies and persons clothed with constitutional authority must consider the lawful processes available under Article 146 of the Constitution.

17. We also call on the Judicial Council to examine these visits and issue clear rules governing the engagement of serving judges with the Executive, political officeholders and state-owned institutions. Judicial officers must not place themselves in situations that create reasonable doubts about their independence or impartiality.

18. This is a defence of the Judiciary. Courts derive their authority from public confidence. Once citizens begin to see the head of the Judiciary as an ally, admirer or public defender of an administration, every politically sensitive decision of the courts becomes open to suspicion.

19. Justice Baffoe-Bonnie must understand that he holds the office in trust for the people of Ghana. The Judiciary does not belong to a government, political party or group of state officials. It belongs to the Republic.

20. The Chief Justice has placed that trust in danger. He should take responsibility and leave office before further harm is done to the standing of the Judiciary and the administration of justice in Ghana.

Signed

People’s Alliance for Governance and Accountability (PAGA)