The recent controversy surrounding comments made by the Chief Justice, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, should concern every Ghanaian who cares about the independence and credibility of our democratic institutions.
The issue is not simply whether the Chief Justice intended to make a political statement. It is whether, given the office he occupies, his choice of words and the circumstances in which they were expressed could reasonably create the perception of political alignment.
During a working visit to the Minerals Income Investment Fund on 2 September 2026, following an earlier visit to SSNIT, the Chief Justice commended the improved performance of these state-owned institutions and, in doing so, was heard asking what the country had really been doing in the past eight years. The remark, understandably, was heard by many as a comparison between the current administration and its predecessor. The opposition New Patriotic Party reacted the following day with a strongly worded statement, signed by its General Secretary, describing the comment as language unbecoming of a Chief Justice and demanding that he either retract it or resign. Others, including legal commentators, civil society voices, and eventually the Catholic Bishops’ Conference, weighed in with more measured concern, urging restraint on all sides while stopping short of calling for his resignation.
I believe this controversy deserves to be examined beyond the immediate political reactions.
The office is bigger than the individual
The Chief Justice is not simply another Ghanaian citizen expressing an opinion on national affairs. He occupies the highest judicial office in the country and heads one of the three principal arms of government.
That position carries a special responsibility.
In a deeply polarised political environment such as Ghana’s, the head of the Judiciary must be exceptionally conscious of how his words, actions and associations may be interpreted. The Judiciary depends heavily on public confidence. A judge does not necessarily have to be biased for the public to begin questioning his neutrality. Sometimes, the perception of partiality is damaging enough on its own.
This is why the Chief Justice must operate with an unusually high degree of restraint.
The question, therefore, should not only be, “Did the Chief Justice mean to support one political party?” The more important question is, “Could a reasonable Ghanaian, watching and listening to him, conclude that he was taking a political position?”
That distinction matters.
There are things one may be entitled to say but should nevertheless choose not to say
The Chief Justice, like every citizen, has views about the state of the Ghanaian economy, public institutions and national development. He may privately hold strong opinions about the performance of successive governments.
But holding an opinion and expressing it publicly from the seat of Chief Justice are two different matters. The higher the office, the greater the discipline required in exercising personal freedom. A Chief Justice should therefore ask himself not merely whether something is true, but whether saying it publicly serves the interests of the Judiciary and the nation.
It is entirely possible for a statement to be factually defensible and still be institutionally unwise. The comment about the previous eight years may well have been intended as an honest observation about institutional performance. Yet in Ghana’s current political climate, praising the present administration’s stewardship of state enterprises while pointedly contrasting it with the last is precisely the kind of remark that invites a political reading, whatever the intention behind it.
Perception matters in the Judiciary
There is a fundamental principle in judicial administration that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. The same principle ought to guide the public conduct of the head of the Judiciary.
The Chief Justice may know that he is politically neutral. His colleagues may know it. His friends may know it. But if his public conduct repeatedly creates circumstances in which one side of the political divide begins to believe he is aligned with the other, the institution itself begins to suffer.
This matters especially because political parties in Ghana change places. The party in government today will eventually become the opposition. The opposition today may return to government tomorrow. The Chief Justice must therefore belong, in the public perception, to neither side.
He must belong to the Constitution.
The Chief Justice must know where his mandate begins and where it ends
This is where institutional boundaries become important.
The Judiciary has an important constitutional mandate. It must interpret the law, protect constitutional rights, adjudicate disputes, and uphold the rule of law. It must also provide leadership within the judicial system. But the Chief Justice is not the Minister of Finance, the minister responsible for state-owned enterprises, the President, the leader of the governing party, or the leader of the opposition.
There are areas of national debate where his intervention may be necessary. There are also areas where silence is the wiser form of leadership. Knowing the difference is part of statesmanship. The office demands restraint because every public appearance can acquire significance the speaker may not have anticipated.
Even attendance and association require judgement
This is why I believe holders of very sensitive constitutional offices must be intentional about the events they attend, the platforms on which they speak, the people with whom they appear, and the issues about which they comment.
This does not mean the Chief Justice should isolate himself from society. Far from it. He should interact with citizens, institutions, traditional leaders, professional bodies, civil society organisations, and government institutions. But he must constantly weigh the institutional meaning of his presence. A Chief Justice attending an event is not perceived the same way an ordinary citizen attending that same event would be. His office travels with him. His words travel with him. His associations travel with him. That is the burden of high office.
Ghana does not need another institution dragged into partisan suspicion
Our democracy is already deeply polarised. Almost every major national institution is viewed through a political lens. Parliament is accused of partisanship. The Executive is obviously political. State institutions are frequently accused of serving whichever government is in power. The media are regularly divided into political camps.
In such an environment, the Judiciary should be one of the last institutions Ghanaians are forced to interpret through the NDC-NPP divide. We should be able to disagree about a judicial decision without immediately asking which political party benefits from it. That confidence is precious and must be protected.
The lesson for the Chief Justice
I do not claim to know the intention behind the Chief Justice’s remarks, and I do not believe they should automatically be read as proof that he has become partisan. But leadership at this level requires something more demanding than good intentions. It requires an understanding of perception.
The Chief Justice may believe his comments were simply an honest assessment of institutional performance. Yet when the head of the Judiciary makes remarks that can reasonably be interpreted as praising one administration while condemning the record of another, he should expect political reactions.
The better course, in my view, would have been to praise good institutional performance without attaching that praise to the political fortunes of successive administrations. There is nothing wrong with saying a public institution is performing well. There is considerable danger in allowing that commendation to sound like a scorecard between political administrations.
A word of caution to all sides
The opposition must also exercise restraint. Criticism of the Chief Justice should not become an excuse for undermining the Judiciary or pressuring judges whenever a statement is politically inconvenient, and demands for resignation over a single remark, however unwise, risk being disproportionate to the offence, as some of the more measured voices in this debate have themselves noted.
At the same time, the Chief Justice should understand why his critics are concerned. The answer to criticism should not be political defensiveness. It should be institutional reflection.
Ghana needs a Judiciary that is not merely independent but visibly independent. That independence must be guarded not only in judgments and courtrooms, but also in public conduct.
The Chief Justice occupies an office where every word carries weight. That is why he must sometimes say less, even when he has much to say.
In a country as politically divided as Ghana, neutrality is not silence. Neutrality is disciplined conduct.
The Chief Justice does not have to convince Ghana that he is neutral. His conduct should make the question unnecessary.