Is Public Opinion Considered by the Supreme Court in its Judgments? – Hannah Tetteh
Hanna Tetteh, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, has posed important queries concerning the impact of public perspective on the decision-making procedures of Ghana’s Supreme Court.
In a Facebook post, she examined whether the highest court in the country considers public opinion when issuing rulings, particularly in politically sensitive cases like the recent ex-parte decision contesting the Speaker of Parliament’s decision on vacant seats.
Tetteh commenced her discussion by recognizing the crucial function of the judiciary in interpreting and implementing the law impartially. However, she contends that judges base their decisions on the wider societal context of Ghana.
This encompasses not only the litigants and legal professionals but also various stakeholders such as the business community, investors, religious figures, unions, civil society, and the general public. She questions whether judges consider public feedback and the societal impact of their rulings.
While the court’s primary duty is to uphold the law, she emphasizes the importance of acknowledging the broader social, economic, and political milieu.
With Ghana gearing up for another election, she notes a growing political tension and underscores the importance of preserving peace and security. Per Tetteh, the prevalent hyper-partisan environment heightens the significance of the judiciary’s role.
The decisions made by the Court possess the ability to impact legal outcomes, as well as the delicate equilibrium of power and stability within the nation.
Hanna Tetteh asserts that, despite the necessity for the judiciary to maintain autonomy and freedom from undue influence, they function within a society where their determinations hold extensive repercussions.
“During these uncertain times, it is imperative to have a judiciary that recognizes its pivotal responsibility in safeguarding not only the just application of laws, but also the survival and prosperity of democracy,” she concludes.
The Recent Supreme Court Decision Involving Speaker Bagbin’s Ruling
Hanna Tetteh’s statement comes in light of the recent Supreme Court verdict on October 18, 2024. The case centered around the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, who declared vacant four parliamentary seats on October 17, 2024.
Three Members of Parliament (MPs) had expressed intentions to run as independent candidates in the 2024 general elections, prompting Bagbin to declare their seats vacant.
In addition, the Second Deputy Speaker, Andrew Amoako Asiamah, who had previously won the 2020 election as an independent MP after leaving the NPP, announced plans to contest on the NPP’s ticket in 2024.
Bagbin’s decision, if enforced, would have altered the power balance in Parliament, giving the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) a narrow majority of 136 seats compared to the NPP’s 135.
The ruling was anticipated to have a significant impact on parliamentary dynamics and the 2024 election campaign. However, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, halted the implementation of Bagbin’s ruling.
The recent court ruling overturned the Speaker’s decision and maintained the current state in Parliament pending legal proceedings. Critics raised concerns about the judiciary potentially exceeding its authority and undermining the Speaker’s role in Parliament.
When the Supreme Court Justices make decisions, they are expected to consider public feedback, implications, and societal reception, in addition to interpreting and applying the law impartially. In a politically charged climate leading up to elections, a steadfast and principled judiciary is crucial for ensuring a competitive yet peaceful democracy. They play a crucial role in safeguarding and promoting the flourishing of democracy.
