The Burden of the Robe

The Chief Justice is reported as saying:

“Sometimes when we hear how well some state organizations are doing now, we wonder what we’ve been doing for the past eight years and how Ghana could have sunk so low.”

I understand the sentiment. But I worry about the language.

“The past eight years” carries an unmistakable partisan meaning in our political discourse. Coming from the Chief Justice, it can therefore easily be understood, fairly or unfairly, as an assessment of one administration relative to another.

ADVERTISEMENT

That is territory the head of the Judiciary should avoid.

Judges do not cease to be citizens when they assume office. But the robe necessarily constrains their public speech. This is especially so for the Chief Justice, whose words inevitably carry the institutional weight of the Judiciary.

We rightly insist that politicians respect judicial independence and stay out of the judicial arena.

The obligation is reciprocal.

Judges, particularly the Chief Justice, must also exercise the restraint necessary to stay out of the partisan political arena.

The point is not whether the observation is right or wrong. Nor is it about the motives of the speaker.

It is about protecting an institution.

There will be cases before our courts involving the acts and omissions of the previous government. There will be cases involving this government. No litigant should have reason to wonder whether the head of the Judiciary has formed a favorable or unfavorable view of any administration.

Judicial independence requires political restraint, from politicians toward judges, and from judges toward partisan politics.

The higher the judicial office, the heavier the burden of restraint.