Petition against SC judge nominee Justice Ackaah-Boafo derails vetting session

The usually rigorous vetting process for President John Mahama’s Supreme Court judge nominees has taken an unexpected turn in Parliament, as the hearing for Court of Appeal Justice Kweku T. Ackaah-Boafo has been postponed indefinitely.

The dramatic halt follows the eleventh-hour submission of a petition to Parliament’s Appointments Committee, levelling serious allegations of judicial bias and misconduct against the esteemed nominee.

This unprecedented delay leaves Justice Ackaah-Boafo’s elevation to Ghana’s highest court, which typically comprises around 15 active Justices and frequently sits in panels of 5 to 9 judges, in immediate limbo.

The petition has now been referred to Speaker Alban Bagbin for urgent action.

The formal complaint was lodged by Anthony Kwabenya Rau, who identifies himself as an “international human rights activist”.

Mr Rau’s petition accuses Justice Ackaah-Boafo of displaying extreme bias and using inappropriate language during previous court proceedings, specifically citing an incident at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) courts.

According to the document, Mr Rau alleges that Justice Ackaah-Boafo “insulted and attacked” him during a hearing, going as far as to label him a “so-called ‘Messiah’ international Human Rights Activist” and question his legitimate right to represent clients within Ghana.

More startlingly, the petitioner claims the judge’s official written judgement in the matter contained personal insults, which Mr Rau interprets as undeniable evidence of bias and corruption.

The petition does not mince words, describing Justice Ackaah-Boafo as “arrogant, biased, power-drunk, an abuser of human rights (sic) and supportive of corruption.”

It concludes with a stark warning: “For me, he will be a disaster at the Supreme Court if approved (sic) for the international and national interest of the republic. These are my reasons to petition the vetting committee not to approve this particular judge.”

Adding another layer to the accusations, Mr Rau’s petition raises concerns about Justice Ackaah-Boafo’s cultural understanding, noting his Canadian background and questioning his respect for local customs, particularly his alleged disrespect towards the 67-year-old petitioner based on age.

Further claims involve the judge’s conduct following a case related to the New Patriotic Party (NPP) government, alleging he refused interest payments before his promotion to the Court of Appeal by then-President Nana Akufo-Addo.

However, sources close to Justice Ackaah-Boafo have vehemently refuted the claims, dismissing the petition outright.

While expressing disappointment over the vetting’s postponement, these sources affirm the judge remains resolute and ready to face the committee when the hearing eventually resumes.

The allegations stand in stark contrast to recent public testimony regarding Justice Ackaah-Boafo’s character.

Parliament’s role in vetting is part of Ghana’s democratic oversight.

Its Standing Orders (Order 99) mandate that petitions received must be investigated within 30 days to ascertain their merit, ensuring they are not “frivolous or vexatious”.

The Appointments Committee has referred the matter to Speaker Bagbin for guidance on the next steps, signalling the rarity and seriousness with which such interventions are viewed.

This controversy underscores the delicate balance between safeguarding judicial independence and ensuring accountability in the appointment of Ghana’s highest judicial officers.

The nation now awaits Speaker Bagbin’s decision, which will determine the fate of Justice Ackaah-Boafo’s nomination and potentially set a precedent for future vetting processes.

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.