Ghana gets new chief justice
Ghana has sworn in Paul Baffoe-Bonnie as its new Chief Justice. He has pledged to pursue judicial reform and stabilise the institution.
Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie was sworn in on Monday as Ghana’s new Chief Justice by President John Dramani Mahama at the Jubilee House. His appointment, confirmed by Parliament last week, follows the dismissal of former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo. The ceremony drew senior government officials, Supreme Court Justices and members of his family. President Mahama praised his experience and urged him to safeguard judicial independence and expedite the delivery of justice. Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, who took the required oaths, pledged to pursue institutional reform within the Judiciary. A respected scholar and jurist, he studied law at the University of Ghana and earned an LL.M. in Constitutional Theory from the University of Oxford. He has served on the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court, and has authored 87 majority opinions. His leadership is expected to stabilise the Judiciary and strengthen access to justice nationwide.
The swearing in of Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie as Chief Justice appears to have brought stability to Ghana’s judiciary after a period of intense turbulence, but it has simultaneously ignited a fierce political debate. Many of President Mahama’s supporters view this appointment as the fulfilment of his campaign promise to “clean up” a judiciary he had claimed was politically compromised ahead of the 2024 elections.
Conversely, critics interpret the rapid transition, which included the suspension of former Chief Justice Torkornoo and the subsequent dismissal of her challenge at the ECOWAS Court, as evidence of a broader political consolidation. Some observers have gone further, suggesting that the President’s actions form part of a scheme to make himself an unassailable figure in the state machinery, potentially paving the way for an unconstitutional third-term attempt in 2028, despite his public denial. These perceptions, regardless of their speculative nature, serve to deepen partisan polarisation and heighten scrutiny of the Executive’s relationship with the nation’s independent institutions.
From an economic viewpoint, the immediate risks to trade and investment are generally considered modest. Businesses typically prioritise macroeconomic stability, predictable regulation, and contract enforcement, all of which remain intact. However, the political optics of removing a sitting Chief Justice can subtly influence long-term perceptions of institutional autonomy. Even without significant market consequences, such controversy may quietly fuel investor concerns regarding the resilience of governance systems when political stakes are elevated.
A more pressing domestic risk stems from fears that the judiciary may not be the final institution targeted for restructuring. Some analysts warn that, emboldened by the precedent set, powerful political actors may consider initiating a similar process to remove the Chair of the Electoral Commission (EC). Given that the EC is central to democratic legitimacy, such a move, even if legally justified, could trigger significant political backlash and undermine public confidence in the electoral management body’s neutrality.
In the broader regional and international context, the ECOWAS Court’s dismissal of Justice Torkornoo’s petition spares Ghana from an immediate legal clash with the regional body. Nevertheless, the episode still raises fundamental questions about the durability of institutional safeguards. Ghana’s reputation as a democratic anchor in West Africa depends heavily on strong, independent oversight bodies, and the perception that a government can restructure them during moments of political advantage could weaken that standing. Crucially, this recent action, where a Chief Justice can be suspended and replaced during a politically sensitive period, may have a snowball effect. Future governments could cite this precedent to justify reshaping independent bodies whenever they become inconvenient, accelerating a dangerous cycle of institutional fragility. The long-term risk, therefore, is not the current controversy itself, but the possibility that it becomes a template for executive overreach in the hands of less restrained future leaders.