In acknowledgement of the time constraints faced by many readers, this article will be published in two parts. The first part examines the public dissatisfaction with the current state of the judiciary, while the second part explores potential reforms that could be implemented by the judiciary to restore public trust.

Introduction

Democracy is incomplete without the judiciary, and a robust component of a society governed by the rule of law requires a vibrant and trusted judiciary.[i] A judiciary can and should possess self-trust; however, without public trust, such self-reliance holds limited significance.[ii]

As the final arbiter of disputes among the branches of government, governmental agencies, businesses, individuals, and between states as well as private citizens, the judiciary plays a vital role in ensuring peace and transformation.

Nevertheless, just as the populace requires the judiciary, the judiciary equally needs the trust of the public.[iii] In the absence of trust, individuals are unlikely to defer their will to the judiciary for the resolution of disputes, and even when they do, they may lack respect for and adherence to the outcomes.[iv] A mistrusted judiciary poses a threat not only to societal peace and harmony but also to the economic, social, cultural, and political development of a nation.

Evolving to Fulfill our Mandate: A Continuing Necessity

Justice emanates from the people and shall be administered in the name of the Republic by an independent Judiciary, which is to be subject only to this Constitution.[v]

The mandate of the Judiciary, therefore, arises from the people. In colloquial terms, the Judiciary is accountable to the citizenry, akin to an employee being answerable to their employer. Thus, the Judiciary of Ghana bears the responsibility of serving the public interest.

It is well understood that when an employer finds an employee’s performance unsatisfactory, the employee faces two options: to enhance performance or seek alternative employment. When an employer's dissatisfaction reaches a critical juncture, it often results in termination.

The importance of an efficient, effective, and well-functioning judiciary in a democracy such as ours cannot be overstated.[vi] As articulated by the former Minister of National Security during a security sensitization workshop for Superior Court judges in 2022, “Justice is the foundation upon which the rule of law, equality before the law and fairness of the law are established. Injustice arising from an ineffective justice delivery system, delayed resolution, or biased adjudication poses a significant threat to national security. When injustice prevails, particularly if the judiciary, regarded as the final arbiter of disputes, is perceived as biased, citizens may resort to self-help, often disregarding established judicial processes.”[vii]

If a Tree Does not Know how to Dance, the Wind will Teach it. [viii]

As a Judiciary, we must continually strive to ensure that our "employers" are satisfied with our work conducted on their behalf and in their name. The stakes are heightened by the fact that discontent among the populace could lead to the dissolution of our institution and the exploration of alternative forms of justice administration.

History has shown us that such alternatives often involve individuals taking the law into their own hands, leading to a societal order governed not by rule of law, equity, and fairness, but rather by chaos and the principle of might over right.

A review of our historical context reveals that this is an option we cannot permit to enter the collective consciousness of our society. As Ghanaians, past, present, and future, we cannot afford to embrace such a scenario.

Ghana has experienced four coups, the first occurring in 1966 and the last in 1981.[ix] Each of these coups was characterized by the suspension of the rule of law and significant human rights abuses. Nevertheless, the final coup was marked by particularly egregious violations of human rights that seemed to shock even the military rulers; specifically, the kidnapping and cold-blooded murder of three High Court judges.[x]

The Daily Graphic report dated Monday, July 5, 1982, with the headline "Corpses of 3 Judges Found," indicated that the leader, Flight Lieutenant Rawlings, expressed his horror, along with that of the government, viewing the killings as an act of terrorism.

The actions incited disgust among Ghanaians and the international community alike. This heinous act illustrates that when power is wielded in the absence of law, even those in positions of power may be astonished by the lengths to which their followers will go in the perpetuation of injustice and severe human rights abuses.

Although our departed colleague judges have been martyred for their unwavering dedication to and adherence to the rule of law, this incident must be unequivocally prevented from recurring in the history of this nation; once was more than enough.

This situation emphasizes the necessity for the Judiciary to consistently align its actions with the expectations of Ghanaians regarding the fulfillment of our mandate to administer justice and in so doing, protect and enshrine the rule of law.

Additionally, we must recognize that we operate as a Service—the Judicial Service of Ghana. The essence of our role is the administration of justice. As a service, we must remain attuned to the needs of our clients to sustain our operations.

Client satisfaction ought to be one of our primary cornerstones. Our clients encompass the good people of Ghana who approach us seeking the justice they have entrusted us to deliver on their behalf.

As a service, we are not authoritative figures over our clients. Although our titles are steeped in the colonial-era terminology of "My Lords and Ladies", it is essential to recognize that one can only be a lord in the presence of subjects. Without Ghanaians seeking justice from us, I must respectfully assert that we will become "Lords and Ladies of Nothing."

I do not seek by any means to be an alarmist. Not for a minute. Rather, I seek to encourage self-reflection within our approach to justice administration, with the ultimate goal of identifying methods to better meet the needs of our clients.

Public confidence in the judiciary is undeniably low, and as "My Lords and Ladies," we cannot afford to resemble the proverbial emperor who parades through the streets naked, nor can we liken ourselves to the ostrich that buries its head in the sand, remaining perpetually oblivious to its surroundings. We must confront the reality from the perspective of the Ghanaian populace.

What is the public perception of the judiciary? Does the public have confidence in the judiciary, and if so, to what extent? As an institution, which of our actions in the recent past and present have inspired judicial confidence, and which have eroded public trust in our ability to fulfill our mandate?

Have we, through our own actions, compromised our independence and impartiality, allowing external forces to intrude upon and dominate our declared responsibilities? What percentage of public confidence is necessary to maintain our legitimacy? What measures are currently in place to promote public trust, and how might we enhance these efforts? How can we avoid actions that have contributed to, and continue to undermine, public trust in our institution?

The Trust Deficit: Waning Public Trust in the Execution of Our Mandate.

Terminologies such as "Unanimous FC and We know the Outcome" which references the apex court's decisions over recent years, appear to have become firmly established. In preparing this article, I decided to conduct a Google search using the term "Unanimous FC."

This search yielded numerous pages of results concerning comments, articles, and statements about the judiciary. I was, to say the least, surprised by the global recognition of this term; it has become widely acknowledged without necessitating a specific reference to the judiciary.

The term has come to signify a judiciary, particularly the apex court that lacks independence and is perceived as biased and subservient to the executive branch of government in the performance of its judicial functions.[xi]

Public sentiment indicates that, instead of functioning as a distinct and independent branch of government exercising exclusive judicial authority within our democracy, we are viewed as an extension of the executive. This situation is concerning.

Should there be any uncertainty regarding Ghanaians' expectations of the judiciary, a reference to Article 127(1) of the Constitution[xii] will clarify this matter. This Article guarantees the independence of the judiciary in the execution of its functions and mandates that all state organs and agencies provide the courts with any reasonable assistance necessary to safeguard their independence, dignity, and effectiveness.

The Ghanaian people have, through the Constitution, demonstrated a commitment to protecting the independence, dignity, and effectiveness of the judiciary. The ongoing decline in public confidence in this institution largely stems from perceptions that its decisions reflect a surrender of its constitutionally guaranteed independence and an acquiescence to the Executive.

It can be argued that Ghana's democracy has made significant strides since the 1981 coup that resulted in the assassination of three judges. Consequently, there is little apprehension regarding the possibility of a coup d'état that would infringe upon judges' fundamental human rights. [xiii]

However, the fact that nearly all segments of society, including the general public, legal professionals, civil society, and the media are voicing their dissatisfaction with the judiciary's performance is a cause for concern.[xiv]

As an institution, we appear to have made some, albeit minimal, efforts to clarify the nature of our work and its potential impact on public perception.[xv] Unfortunately, our efforts have often been perceived as dismissive of public opinion. We seem to have disregarded this perception, attributing it to individuals who lack an understanding of our work and its associated legal complexities.

Our dismissive approach has not alleviated the perception; rather, it seems to have exacerbated its dissemination. Any explanations we have provided to the public have prompted murmurs of “the lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

We cannot continue to overlook the credible reports indicating a negative public perception of the judiciary and the ongoing erosion of public trust and confidence in our role as the exclusive purveyors of justice.

A Global Mirror: International Surveys and Rankings Highlight Growing Concern

Reputable institutions such as the Mo Ibrahim Foundation[xvi] and the Centre for Democratic Development's Afrobarometer have for the past few years, reported negative public perceptions regarding the judiciary's independence, fairness, and impartiality, which have collectively contributed to a decline in public confidence in our ability to execute our mandate.

The 2024 Ibrahim Index of African Governance, Index Report[xvii] presents a concerning analysis of the judiciary. Notably, there has been a significant decline in both the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

Specifically, the measure of judicial independence, defined as the judiciary's capacity to interpret laws without interference from political actors and governmental institutions, experienced a substantial decrease of 50% over a seven-year period.

In 2014, the judiciary achieved a score of 100% with respect to its independence; however, by 2018, this score had dropped to 50%. This decline persisted, with the judiciary maintaining a constant score of 50% in subsequent years until 2023.

Regarding judicial impartiality, the index indicates a decline of approximately 30% between 2017 and 2018. In 2017, Ghana's judicial impartiality was rated above 95%. Nevertheless, by 2018, this score began to decrease, eventually reaching 68.3% by 2023.

Further, the report revealed a decrease in public confidence in the judiciary, which declined from 67% in 2014 to 46% in 2023, particularly concerning the judiciary's adherence to due process and fairness in criminal matters. Consequently, fewer than 50% of Ghanaians perceive the judiciary as a fair institution.

The report utilized various indices, including judicial appointments, court independence, and judge autonomy, to assess judicial impartiality and independence.

Among the 54 African countries assessed, Ghana recorded the most significant deterioration in the index of rule of law and justice over a five-year span. Given that the judiciary is fundamentally tasked with administering justice and fairness, these findings warrant urgent attention.

In light of these findings, the Commissioner of the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) expressed serious concerns regarding the diminishing public confidence in the judiciary over the seven years.[xviii]

He noted that, according to the report, the perception of bias cannot simply be dismissed as a consequence of political gerrymandering. He articulated, "There is a major problem with our Judiciary. The implication is that we cannot run to the Judiciary anytime we have a problem with our government. Then where else do we go?"[xix]

In addition to the Mo Ibrahim index, the 2020 Afrobarometer report[xx] on public trust in the judiciary reveals that fewer than one in three individuals rate the judicial system favourably, with “high” or “very high” ratings across various dimensions, including independence (31%), professionalism (30%), fairness (21%), responsiveness (18%), and transparency (16%).

Furthermore, fewer than half of the respondents expressed a considerable level of trust in the courts, with only 16% indicating they trust the courts “a lot” and 32% expressing trust “somewhat.” The key findings of the report highlight that “the military, presidency, religious and traditional leaders, and the Electoral Commission are more trusted than the courts.”[xxi]

In 2024, the percentage of public trust experienced a significant decline compared to 2020. Only 13 per cent of respondents expressed “a lot” of trust in the courts, while an additional 22 per cent indicated that they “somewhat” trust them.

This represents a 3 per cent decrease in the proportion of individuals reporting a significant level of trust in the courts since 2020, alongside a 10 per cent decline in those who expressed moderate trust.

The report indicates that 62 per cent of Ghanaians possess little or no trust in the judiciary, with approximately 97 per cent perceiving judges and magistrates as corrupt. The judiciary is clearly losing the battle for public confidence, primarily due to two factors: lack of independence and perceptions of corruption.

Re-examining Our Journey: The Need to Pause and Reflect

Media coverage and public commentary surrounding such reports are sufficient to induce considerable concern for any judge who values public service and perception. What is even more troubling is that there was extensive media coverage of concerns of ordinary Ghanaians about their waning confidence in the Judiciary before the publication of these reports and rankings. Notably, the designation "Unanimous FC" was attributed to the Judiciary by the media prior to the emergence of these reports.

Even if one were to dismiss these comments as originating from individuals lacking an understanding of the judiciary's functioning, it remains imperative to acknowledge that the pervasive public mistrust and underlying frustration regarding the judiciary transcends all social classes.[xxii]

This concern is further highlighted by the acknowledgment from the former Minister of National Security, who recognized the growing mistrust of the judiciary among the populace and urged the judiciary to "work assiduously to eliminate all forms of injustice"[xxiii] in order to preserve national security.

The Minister cautioned the judiciary against consistently ruling in favor of the government, as such actions contribute to a detrimental public perception of impartiality, thereby diminishing public confidence in the judiciary.[xxiv]

The Waning Confidence of Legal Minds

Even more troubling is the sentiment expressed by prominent legal figures; individuals who possess a nuanced understanding of the judiciary's operations and have garnered public respect for their legal expertise, who have lamented the apparent lack of independence within the judiciary in fulfilling its mandate, as well as its indifference to declining public confidence.

It is unnecessary to elaborate on the credentials of Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata and Justice (retired) William Atuguba in relation to their legal acumen and understanding of the Ghanaian judiciary. These distinguished legal figures, along with several others, have publicly articulated their dissatisfaction with the current state of the judiciary.

In an interview with GHOne news, widely disseminated across various online platforms,[xxv] Mr. Tsikata remarked, among other points, that "ordinary citizens jokingly refer to the judiciary as a ‘unanimous football club,’ deciding cases in favor of one side. This creates a dangerous precedent where individuals lose faith in the judicial process altogether.”

Justice William Atuguba (retd) recently delivered a speech at the University of Ghana,[xxvi] wherein he profoundly traced the historical context of perceived judicial corruption and political bias, as well as interferences with the independence of the judiciary, spanning from the administration of Prime Minister Busia to that of President Kufuor.

In his remarks regarding the perceived lack of independence and political interference, he asserted, "I want to emphasize that there is a vast chasm between the independence of the judiciary in theory and its independence in practice."[xxvii]

On the current public perception of the judiciary, he remarked, "The current public image of the Judiciary in Ghana is reflected in social media." He further referenced a statement by Dr. Lawrence Appiah, titled “Ghanaians are losing confidence in the Judiciary System”.[xxviii]

In the words of the Dr., "The deteriorated image of the judiciary easily sparks laughter from the citizenry when one decides to go to court for justice," and added that "it is one of the scariest existential threats to any democracy when citizens think their judiciary holds no value for them or is of no use to them."

Whilst the totality of Dr. Appiah's commentary may appear biased in favor of a particular political party, an examination of the various comments on social media about the judiciary suggest a general public sentiment.

Voices of Concern from Civil Society Groups

Civil society organizations have also participated in the ongoing criticism of the judiciary. The Center for Democratic Development has conducted approximately ten reports on public perceptions of corruption and public confidence in Ghana's institutions between 1999 and 2024.

These reports have consistently indicated a decline in public confidence in the judiciary, which is frequently identified among the top five institutions in Ghana in terms of public distrust regarding corruption and the capacity to fulfill its mandate of administering justice.

This trend suggests that for 25 years and counting, the citizens of Ghana, in whose name justice is administered, have grown increasingly dissatisfied with judicial performance.

The Institute for Security Studies (ISS)[xxix] has emphasized that the continuous decline in public confidence is alarming and has called for the judiciary to take measures to restore public trust.

Citing Afrobarometer reports over the years, the Institute noted that in 2005, approximately 30% of Ghanaians expressed a lack of confidence in the judiciary, a figure that sharply increased to 62% in 2023/2024.

This indicates that the judiciary is failing to meet its mandate. While the judiciary may be providing some form of justice, many perceive that this does not align with what they expect from the system. It is imperative that we confront these concerns directly.

Judiciary at the Helm: Spearheading Critical Reforms

As an institution, it is in our own interest and in service to the people of Ghana that we rise to the challenge of reform. By acknowledging that we are not meeting public expectations and recognizing that we have allowed public mistrust of our institution to fester, we can embark on the challenging journey of self-introspection and reform. It is only then that other well-meaning Ghanaians, and if necessary, the international community, can join us in this endeavor to enhance our services and regain public trust.

The popular Akan adage may prove apt here: "When your mother is dead and you insist that she is sleeping, she will wake up for all to see." We cannot pretend that our mother is merely asleep; we must acknowledge her demise.

It is only by doing so that we can begin the process of mourning and healing and, most importantly, secure the country’s support and empathy during this period.

As an institution, we stand to gain more in terms of public trust by initiating the reform process from within rather than having it imposed on us from external sources. Initiating reforms internally enables us to own the narrative, making the reforms easier to accept and, even if they are extreme, less painful. To inflict change upon ourselves is more bearable than to endure that change imposed by others.

Moreover, this proactive approach would instill hope in the Ghanaian people and ultimately initiate the process of regaining their confidence, as they would perceive the institution as one that is not only willing to listen to their criticisms and frustrations but also committed to addressing them.

 In summary, we would be conveying to Ghanaians that they have the right to critique us and that, when they do, we are receptive to such criticism and ready to implement measures that not only address their concerns but also mitigate future criticisms. Such an attitude fosters trust and confidence.

A moment of reflection reveals that many Ghanaians applauded the decision to review[xxx] the 1992 Constitution, which, as of 2010 (when the Constitutional Review Committee was set up),[xxxi] had been in existence for only two decades.

In light of this, the fact that the Judiciary has operated since independence in 1957, with only a few modifications,[xxxii] indicates that the need for review and reform is long overdue. The span from 1957 until now is nearly seven decades. We, as an institution, require significant reforms  in the processes and procedures by which we administer justice to the people of Ghana.

Laying The Foundation: Taking The Initial First Steps Forward

We must take the initial step of acknowledging the legitimate frustrations of the populace, offering apologies where necessary, and subsequently implementing measures to enhance our understanding and responsiveness to their concerns. Following this, we should undertake concrete actions aimed first at regaining the trust of our constituents, who are the citizens of Ghana, and subsequently solidifying and maintaining that trust.

I do not advocate for the notion that we must endeavor to satisfy every individual who seeks justice. In the realm of justice administration, the ultimate outcome is a judgment or ruling. Upon delivery of a judgment or ruling, one party may experience elation while another may endure distress.

However, when all parties, along with the public who observe the proceedings, can honestly affirm that each step leading to the final judgment was conducted with fairness, then we can consider our duties fulfilled. Presently, there exists a pervasive public mistrust regarding both the processes and the outcomes, whether they manifest as judgments or rulings.

Our legitimacy is rooted not only in the legal framework but also in the public's trust.[xxxiii] This dual foundation underscores the necessity of conducting court proceedings in a public forum.[xxxiv] The presence of the public in the courtroom serves to ensure that the fairness of the judicial process is transparent, thereby fostering public trust and confidence in the judicial system.[xxxv]

Currently, observations of our proceedings have led the public to express significant distrust in both our institution and the judicial process itself.[xxxvi] While we continue to maintain legal legitimacy, it is imperative that we strive to regain societal legitimacy and restore public trust in the solemn responsibilities entrusted to us by the citizens of Ghana.

---

[i] Barak, Aharon. "A Judge on Judging: the Role of a Supreme Court in a Democracy." Harv. L. Rev. 116 (2002): 19.

[ii] Bühlmann, Marc, and Ruth Kunz. "Confidence in the judiciary: Comparing the independence and legitimacy of judicial systems." West European Politics 34.2 (2011): 317-345.

[iii] Crook, Richard, Kojo Asante, and Victor Brobbey. "Popular concepts of justice and fairness in Ghana: Testing the legitimacy of new or hybrid forms of state justice." Available at SSRN 2353309 (2010).

[iv] Pikramenos, Michail N. "Public Confidence and the Judiciary in a Democratic Society." Democracy in Times of Crises: Challenges, Problems and Policy Proposals. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. 213-223.

[v] Article 125 (1) of the Constitution, 1992

[vi] Bühlmann, Marc, and Ruth Kunz. "Confidence in the judiciary: Comparing the independence and legitimacy of judicial systems." West European Politics 34.2 (2011): 317-345.

[vii] https://www.myjoyonline.com/judiciary-perceived-to-be-biased-a-big-threat-to-national-security-kan-dapaah/. Website last visited on 24^th January, 2025 at 8:25pm

[vii] Ibid

[viii] This is an African Proverb that means in life, individuals must be open to learning and be adaptable to change.

[ix] Teye, Victor B. "Coups d'etat and African tourism: A study of Ghana." Annals of Tourism research 15.3 (1988): 329-356.

[x] Agyeman-Duah, Baffour. "Ghana, 1982–6: The politics of the PNDC." The Journal of modern African studies 25.4 (1987): 613-642.

[xi] https://www.modernghana.com/news/1356255/public-perception-of-judiciary-as-pro-npp-in-unan.html.wesbite last visited on 5th February, 2025 at 12:32pm

[xii] Constitution, 1992

[xiii] Boafo-Arthur, Kwame. Democracy and stability in West Africa: the Ghanaian experience. Nordiska Afrikainstitutet; Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University, 2008.

[xiv] Acheampong, Joseph Ofori, and Damon M. Cann. "Assessing Public Trust in Ghana’s Courts." Journal of Law and Courts (2025): 1-11.

[xv] https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Chief-Justice-nominee-explains-what-unanimous-decision-means-in-court-1775624. Website last visited on 26^th January, 2025 at 12:25am

[xvi] https://mo.ibrahim.foundation/. Website last visited on 23^rd November, 2025 at 10:15pm.

[xvii] The report can be downloaded from https://mo.ibrahim.foundation/sites/default/files/2024-10/2024-index-report.pdf.

[xviii] https://chraj.gov.gh/news/if-the-independence-of-the-judiciary-can-decline-between-2017-and-2024-then-we-have-a-problem-joseph-whittal/. Website last visited on 25^th January, 2025 at 11:02pm.

[xix] Ibid

[xx] CDD-Ghana Afrobarometer Dispatch No. 347 | 28 February 2020

[xxi] Ibid

[xxii] https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/politics/ghana-news-deteriorating-assessments-of-ghanas-judiciary.html. Website last visited on 26^th January, 2025 at 12:29am.

[xxiii] Idem “n” 3

[xxiv] https://kasapafmonline.com/?p=245423. Website last visited on 26^th January, 2025 at 1:02 am

[xxv] https://citinewsroom.com/2024/11/tsatsu-tsikata-public-perception-of-judiciary-favouring-npp-threatens-democracy/ website last visited on 24^th January, 2025 at 2:22pm

[xxvi] https://thefourthestategh.com/2023/10/full-text-justice-william-atugubas-speech-on-protecting-our-democracy-the-role-of-the-judiciary/. Full speech published by the news portal. Website last visited on the 24^th of January, 2025 at 7:58pm.

[xxvii] Idem “n” 27

[xxviii] https://ghananewsonline.com.gh/ghanaians-are-losing-confidence-in-the-judiciary-system-dr-lawrence/. Website last visited on the 24^th of January, 2025 at 8:18pm.

[xxix] https://issafrica.org/iss-today/ghana-s-judiciary-must-act-fast-to-regain-public-trust. Website last visited on 26^th January, 2025 at 12:15am

[xxx] Van Gyampo, Ransford E., and Emmanuel Debrah. "Government Response to Public Opinion in Ghana's Constitutional Review Process." The African Review: A Journal of African Politics, Development and International Affairs (2014): 85-107.

[xxxi] Constitutional Instrument, 2010. C.I. 64

[xxxii] Rathbone, Richard. "Native courts, local courts, chieftaincy and the CPP in Ghana in the 1950s." Journal of African Cultural Studies 13.1 (2000): 125-139.

[xxxiii] Mack, Kathy, Sharyn Roach Anleu, and Jordan Tutton. "The judiciary and the public: Judicial perceptions." Adelaide Law Review, The 39.1 (2018): 1-35.

[xxxiv] Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459)

[xxxv] Ainuson, Kweku. "Role Of The Public And The Media In Civil Court Proceedings In Ghana." KAS African Law Study Library 5.1 (2018): 54-67.

[xxxvi] https://scientect.org/2022/05/19/opinion-the-reputation-of-ghanas-judiciary-is-at-an-all-time-low/. Website last visited on 5^th February, 2025 at 12:15pm