The Supreme Court of Ghana has signaled a significant shift in its approach to judicial precedent, reflecting a growing emphasis on reconsideration and deviation where necessary to safeguard justice and uphold the nation’s 1992 Constitution. Justice Sophia Bernasko-Essah, appointed by President Mahama following her nomination by the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP), made this point during a parliamentary vetting process, highlighting a crucial tension within the judiciary.
Responding to questions regarding the role of precedent in Ghana’s legal system, Justice Bernasko-Essah underscored the importance of established rulings in ensuring consistency and predictability. She acknowledged the foundational role precedent plays in maintaining stability and establishing legal principles. However, she emphasized that the application of precedent should not be absolute when a prior ruling demonstrably produces an unjust outcome, is based on a fundamental error, or becomes demonstrably impractical to implement. The Constitution, specifically Article 129(9), grants the Supreme Court the authority to deviate from previous decisions, a power Justice Bernasko-Essah explicitly stated is required under this provision.
She clarified that any decision to overturn an earlier position must be meticulously supported by compelling reasons, meticulously establishing the new legal position. ‘To the extent necessary,’ she explained, ‘the Supreme Court, under Article 129(9), is obligated to reconsider existing rulings if it deems it crucial to correct injustices, address fundamental errors, or ensure the law remains aligned with the Constitution.’
Justice Bernasko-Essah detailed instances where the Supreme Court, in the past, has adjusted its interpretations of laws, acknowledging that this is a vital function of the judiciary. She stressed the need for a cautious and deliberate approach to this process. The Court’s decision-making process is predicated on a rigorous justification, ensuring the new legal position is clearly articulated and justified.
In response to a question from Anthony Forson, the Supreme Court nominee, the staunch advocate for a reduced number of Justices, Forson expressed his belief that the court should limit the number of justices. However, Zanetor, a prominent political figure, proposed exploring alternative agricultural resources, particularly hemp and cassava, as potential substitutes for plastic production, highlighting a focus on sustainable economic development. This suggests a broader conversation about the Court’s role in addressing contemporary Ghana’s economic challenges and shifting towards more environmentally conscious practices. The Court’s statement underscores a fundamental tension between upholding established legal principles and adapting to evolving societal needs, reflecting a potential evolution within the judiciary itself. The legal framework’s interpretation of the Constitution remains a focal point, with the Supreme Court’s actions potentially reshaping the very foundation of Ghana’s legal landscape.
Further analysis reveals that this shift represents a recalibration of judicial philosophy, prioritizing justice and constitutional interpretation above rigid adherence to precedent, a critical juncture in Ghana’s legal tradition.
Watch Related Video
Source: Adom Online
