Was Hon. Alexander Kwamina Afenyo-Markin, the Minority Leader in the Parliament of Ghana, right or wrong for referring to the nominee as the “disputed Chief Justice“?
Was he being unfair, or was he saying what many think but are too cautious to admit? The question should not offend anyone who values truth, because words only hurt when they reveal something real.
His description was not reckless. It carried meaning, weight, and context that cannot be brushed aside as partisan rhetoric.
To dispute something means to challenge its fairness, legitimacy, or process. It is not an insult; it is a factual statement when a process raises genuine concern.
A “disputed nominee” is one whose path to elevation is marked by questions and irregularities. In this case, the term fits perfectly. The process that led to the appointment of the new Chief Justice was not smooth, open, or free from controversy.
It was born out of political maneuvering and the abrupt removal of Justice Torkornoo. This decision continues to evoke unease, even among those who consider themselves neutral but choose to remain silent.
Was Afenyo-Markin wrong? No. He only gave voice to what many have been whispering. The issue is not with his words but with the situation that made those words accurate. The real starting point is this: Was the removal of Justice Torkornoo right? Was it lawful? Was it fair? Did she exhaust all available procedures to challenge her removal?
Those who have followed the issue know that her departure was anything but ordinary. It was political, and everyone who watched it unfold could see that, including the so-called neutrals who now pretend not to.
When politics begins to shape who occupies the highest judicial office, the moral foundation of the judiciary weakens. A Chief Justice whose appointment is clouded by doubt will always bear that tag. Every decision, every public appearance, and every mention of the office will carry that quiet question in the background: was it merit, or was it politics?
That is what makes Afenyo-Markin’s words ring true. The term “disputed Chief Justice” is not an insult. It reflects the unease surrounding a process that many believe was politically influenced.
In the political environment we find ourselves
Some may see this as a form of equalisation. They may argue that the current situation merely mirrors what the New Patriotic Party government under former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo did when it removed the Electoral Commissioner through a process that many still describe as politically motivated.
That episode too remains disputed, and to date, it is remembered as one of the most questionable removals in the history of Ghana’s democratic institutions.
Some argue that the two situations are not precisely the same because one involves an arm of government while the other does not. Yet, when examined closely, the Electoral Commission, although not classified as an arm of government, plays a decisive role in shaping the composition of the other two.
Its conduct and independence directly influence who leads the executive and who controls the legislature. That makes its independence as vital to democracy as the judiciary itself. Any process that undermines it, therefore, weakens the foundation of the entire democratic structure.
The danger is that this pattern begins to look like a new norm. Has Ghana reached the point where every government that comes to power uses its influence to remove officials who do not serve its political comfort?
Have we accepted a system where petitions are framed with hidden motives, committees are established under the guise of neutrality, and yet the outcome is already predetermined before the process begins? How long will we continue on this path? Will our democracy always be at the mercy of those who control political machinery?
It now feels as though governance has become a political chess game, where the objective is not to serve the people but to outdo the previous administration in manipulation and control.
Each side accuses the other of wrongdoing, yet both repeat the same acts when given the chance. This is how institutions lose credibility and how nations lose their moral compass.
Some of us, however, refuse to accept this as usual. We may belong to different political traditions, but certain principles transcend partisanship.
The survival of our democracy depends on citizens who are willing to speak truth to power, regardless of which government is in control. If we remain silent, the erosion will continue until nothing is left of the values that once defined our national pride.
History will remember this period, not for the ceremonies or speeches, but for the silence that followed injustice. It will remember those who spoke out and those who looked away.
It will remember the politics that tainted justice, and the moment a nation watched its judiciary lose the perception of independence.
In the years to come, one title will remain in the public memory: “the disputed Chief Justice.” The Chief Justice, whose rise began in controversy, whose legitimacy was questioned, and whose appointment will forever stand as a political mark in the history of Ghana’s democracy.
To prevent this cycle from repeating, Ghana needs firm institutional reforms. The procedures for the removal and appointment of key public officials must be insulated from political influence.
Independent vetting panels must be established with transparent rules and timelines. The Constitution must be strengthened to limit the unchecked discretion of the presidency in initiating petitions against public officers.
Parliamentary oversight must go beyond mere confirmation hearings to genuine scrutiny of process and motive. Our democracy cannot continue to rely on good intentions; it must be guided by laws that protect institutions from abuse.
Only then can we restore public confidence, end this political tit-for-tat, and ensure that no future Chief Justice, Electoral Commissioner, or public officer bears the title of “disputed”.
