Ghana’s Fourth Republic stands at a critical juncture, navigating severe political polarization that threatens public confidence in our democratic foundations. Recent high-stakes legal battles, political commentary, and structural shakeups in the judiciary have triggered intense national debate. At the heart of this friction lies a fundamental question: Are our institutional checks and balances holding firm, or are they being bent to executive and partisan wills?

This debate was recently brought to a boiling point by a viral, highly critical article authored by political observer J.A. Sarbah, who alleged that a coordinated “Triangle of Tyranny” is capturing Ghana’s judiciary and dismantling democratic checks. For everyday Ghanaians, separating raw political rhetoric from constitutional reality is essential to safeguarding our democracy. This article provides an objective, holistic analysis of the three major constitutional battlegrounds defining our current political era, examines the commentary surrounding it, and offers a structural path forward to reinforce our democratic integrity.

About the Commentator: Who is J.A. Sarbah?

To understand the fierce tone of the current national debate, it is helpful to look at the profile of the commentators shaping it. J.A. Sarbah is a prominent Ghanaian political commentator, media practitioner, and news editor for the Daily Statesman—a newspaper traditionally and deeply aligned with the New Patriotic Party (NPP).

Signing off his essays as a “Political Observer & Voice of National Conscience,” Sarbah writes highly opinionated, rhetorically intense pieces that staunchly defend the NPP’s Danquah-Busia-Dombo political tradition while aggressively criticizing the National Democratic Congress (NDC). His writings frequently characterize NDC governance as an oppressive regime utilizing “constitutional subversion” to dismantle independent institutions. His recent viral essay serves as a prime example of the deep partisan polarization surrounding Ghana’s legal and political architecture.

1. The Presidential Term Limit Debate: Longevity vs. Renewal

The explosive debate over whether a former president can seek office again centers on the legal interpretation of Article 66 of the 1992 Constitution. Critics like Sarbah view any attempt at a return as an unconstitutional appetite for power, while defenders see it as a legitimate democratic right.

• The “Lifetime Cap” Argument: Plaintiffs in recent landmark cases contend that the constitutional spirit mandates a maximum lifetime limit of eight years in office for any individual. They argue that allowing a former head of state to sit out a cycle and return compromises executive renewal and risks institutional capture.
• The “Consecutive Only” Argument: Conversely, legal defenders maintain that Article 66(2) explicitly bars a person from being elected to the presidency for more than two terms in succession (consecutively). They assert that a non-consecutive bid is entirely lawful since the text does not outline a permanent lifetime ban.
• The Legal Stake: This matter rests entirely with the Supreme Court, which holds the exclusive jurisdiction to interpret whether a substantial break resets the eligibility count.

2. The Mechanics of Accountability: Article 146 and the Chief Justice

The recent unprecedented removal of Justice Gertrude Torkornoo and the subsequent swearing-in of Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie have turned a bright spotlight on Article 146. Commentators like Sarbah have aggressively framed Torkornoo’s removal as a ruthless political “crucifixion.” However, the constitutional process is engineered to balance judicial accountability with security of tenure:

• The Grounds: A Chief Justice or Superior Court judge cannot be removed based on an unpopular judicial judgment. They can only be removed on grounds of stated misbehaviour, incompetence, or inability to perform their duties.
• The Strict Protocol: The process begins with a citizen petition to the President. The President refers it to the Council of State to establish a prima facie case. If established, a five-member judicial committee investigates the evidence.
• The Binding Mandate: Under Article 146(9), the President has no personal discretion; he is constitutionally bound to act strictly in accordance with the investigative committee’s findings. While partisan critics label these processes as political hits, legal bodies affirm that strict adherence to this framework protects the rule of law.

3. Judicial Appointments: A Tale of Two Political Traditions

The ongoing allegation of “judiciary capture”—raised fiercely in Sarbah’s article regarding figures like Doe Adjaho, Tsatsu Tsikata, and the Council of State—is a historical political volleyball in Ghana. Both major parties have historically used their constitutional appointment powers to influence the bench, albeit through different strategic lenses:

• The New Patriotic Party (NPP) Approach: Historically tends to expand the structural size of the Supreme Court bench to introduce diverse legal perspectives. Critics, however, routinely accuse them of “court-packing” to ensure a sympathetic majority on constitutional disputes.
• The National Democratic Congress (NDC) Approach: Historically focuses heavily on rigorous accountability, often using Article 146 petitions and administrative audits to review the judicial branch. Critics accuse them of aggressive executive overreach to purge independent minds and install loyalists.

Strategic Recommendations for Institutional Reform

To decouple the judiciary from partisan warfare and restore absolute public trust, Ghana must evolve past the structural vulnerabilities of the 1992 Constitution:

• Cap the Supreme Court Bench: Amend the constitution to set a strict, unalterable limit on the number of Supreme Court justices, eliminating any future executive’s ability to alter the size of the court for political advantage.
• Reform the Appointment Mechanism: De-politicize judicial appointments by stripping the President of unilateral nominating power. Instead, nominations should originate strictly from an independent, non-partisan Judicial Council, subject to independent parliamentary confirmation.
• Depoliticize the Council of State: Transition the Council of State into a fully independent, merit-based advisory body to ensure its reviews in Article 146 proceedings remain completely insulated from executive or party-political influence.
• Clarify Constitutional Ambiguities: The Constitutional Review Commission must formally codify clear language regarding presidential term limits to prevent cyclical, hyper-partisan litigations ahead of major election cycles.

De-Politicizing the Scales of Justice

The true metric of Ghana’s democratic maturity is not the total absence of constitutional friction, but our collective willingness to resolve these disputes through institutional, lawful channels rather than political warfare. While political commentators like J.A. Sarbah will naturally view events through highly partisan lenses, the state itself must remain neutral, robust, and transparent. The judiciary must never become a trophy captured by whichever party wins the executive presidency. By pursuing structural constitutional reforms and demanding transparent accountability, Ghanaians can ensure that the scales of justice remain balanced, fair, and blind to political colors.

✍️ Retired Senior Citizen
For and on behalf of all Senior Citizens of the Republic of Ghana 🇬🇭

Teshie-Nungua
[email protected]