Professor Eric Kwabena Kyeh Abavare, President of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) chapter of the University Teachers Association of Ghana (UTAG), has endorsed proposed constitutional reforms seeking to limit the size of Ghana’s Supreme Court to 15 justices, introduce a fixed 10-year term for the Chief Justice and streamline the country’s appellate system.
He argues that the proposals by the Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) could strengthen judicial independence, restore public confidence in the Judiciary, reduce case backlogs and make justice more accessible and affordable, particularly for ordinary Ghanaians.
In the fifth instalment of his constitutional reform commentary series, titled “Capping the Bench, Freeing the Docket,” the Senior Lecturer at the Department of Physics examines proposed changes to the composition, leadership and structure of the Judiciary.
While supporting most of the recommendations, Prof. Abavare cautions that their success will depend on appropriate constitutional safeguards, adequate funding and the integrity of the institutions and individuals responsible for implementing them.
Prof. Abavare grounds his argument in Ghana’s experience during the 2012 presidential election petition, which placed the Supreme Court at the centre of national attention.
Reflecting on the proceedings, he recalls a country anxiously following the hearings as the Judiciary assumed responsibility for resolving a dispute with significant implications for the nation’s democratic stability.
He contrasts that period with developments in 2024 and 2025, including the removal proceedings involving then-Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, public disagreements over the expanding size of the Supreme Court and perceptions that some judicial decisions may have been influenced by political considerations.
Although he acknowledges that such perceptions may not always be justified, he argues that the Judiciary’s changing public image makes institutional reform necessary.
“In two decades, the third arm of government has moved from an object of national reverence to a topic of talk-show gossip,” he writes.
For Prof. Abavare, the CRC’s proposals present an opportunity to address structural weaknesses that could undermine public confidence in the Judiciary, rather than responding to individual controversies in isolation.
One of the principal reforms Prof. Abavare supports is a constitutional cap limiting the Supreme Court to the Chief Justice and no more than 14 other justices.
He explains that Article 128(1) of the 1992 Constitution currently stipulates a minimum of nine justices in addition to the Chief Justice but does not establish a maximum number.
In his view, the absence of an upper limit leaves room for successive governments to expand the Court, potentially making its composition a source of political controversy.
A constitutional ceiling of 15 justices, he argues, would provide greater certainty and reduce the possibility of disputes over the size of the country’s highest court.
He considers the proposed number workable, noting that the Supreme Court already conducts its proceedings in panels of five, seven or nine justices.
However, Prof. Abavare insists that the cap must be protected under the Constitution’s fully entrenched amendment provisions, which require a referendum for amendment.
He warns that without this protection, a future government with the necessary parliamentary majority could seek to increase the Court’s membership, undermining the objective of the reform.
He therefore wants the proposed ceiling placed beyond amendment through the ordinary parliamentary process, making direct public approval necessary before it can be changed.
Prof. Abavare has also endorsed the proposal to replace the Chief Justice’s existing age-based tenure arrangement with a single, non-renewable 10-year term.
Under the current framework, Supreme Court justices, including the Chief Justice, are subject to a retirement age of 70. Consequently, the length of a Chief Justice’s tenure depends partly on the age at which the person is appointed.
Prof. Abavare argues that this arrangement creates uncertainty and could encourage appointing authorities to favour younger candidates because of the prospect of longer tenure.
A fixed decade-long term, he says, would establish a uniform tenure regardless of the appointee’s age, make succession planning more predictable and reduce the potential for political calculations to influence appointments.
“A fixed, single, non-renewable ten-year term removes both problems at once,” he writes.
He believes the arrangement would also eliminate uncertainty over the duration of the Chief Justice’s tenure and prevent the prospect of reappointment from becoming a consideration in the exercise of the office.
Another major recommendation is to restructure Ghana’s appellate system so that the Court of Appeal becomes the final court for most civil and criminal cases.
The proposed amendment to Article 131 would reserve the Supreme Court primarily for constitutional questions, matters of general public importance and cases in which the Court of Appeal has reached conflicting decisions.
Prof. Abavare argues that the reform would allow the Supreme Court to concentrate on issues with broader constitutional and national implications instead of handling a large volume of ordinary disputes.
He maintains that reducing the number of appellate stages could help address delays, lower litigation costs and make the justice system more responsive to citizens’ needs.
For people with limited financial resources, prolonged legal proceedings can mean additional legal fees and years of uncertainty. Prof. Abavare believes a streamlined appeals process could ease that burden, particularly for vulnerable groups such as kayayei, or head porters.
He argues that fewer appellate stages could result in faster resolution of disputes, lower costs and fewer opportunities for improper payments during lengthy legal proceedings.
The objective, he maintains, is not to diminish litigants’ rights but to establish a more efficient division of responsibilities between the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
Prof. Abavare also supports the proposal to formally integrate District and Circuit Courts into the Judiciary under a new designation: Primary Courts.
He argues that these courts constitute the main point of contact between the justice system and the majority of Ghanaians, who are more likely to depend on them to resolve everyday disputes than to appear before superior courts.
Under the proposed arrangement, the lower courts would be incorporated into the Judiciary’s formal institutional framework, with more consistent standards for judicial careers, professional training, discipline and oversight.
However, Prof. Abavare warns that changing their status without improving their funding and working conditions would undermine the reform.
He points to concerns about the remuneration and conditions of service of Circuit Court magistrates, arguing that inadequate compensation could contribute to the departure of judicial officers for private legal practice.
“A constitutional elevation without a fiscal one would be a slap dressed up as a hug,” he writes.
He therefore calls for the proposed institutional changes to be accompanied by adequate budgetary allocations, improved remuneration, suitable court facilities and investment in personnel.
For him, the recognition of lower courts must translate into practical improvements in their ability to deliver justice.
The CRC’s proposals also seek to change the process for appointing the Chief Justice.
Prof. Abavare supports a system under which the President would appoint the Chief Justice from a nomination submitted by a reformed Council of State, subject to prior parliamentary approval.
He argues that the arrangement could introduce additional checks into the appointment process and reduce the concentration of discretion in the presidency.
Under the proposed framework, the Council of State would participate in selecting the nominee, while Parliament would provide oversight through its approval process.
However, he cautions that the effectiveness of the new system would depend on the credibility and independence of the institutions involved.
He warns that a partisan nomination by the reformed Council of State could undermine public confidence in the entire reform before it has had an opportunity to demonstrate its value.
Prof. Abavare therefore urges Ghanaians to scrutinise nominations, parliamentary vetting and approval decisions under any new arrangement.
He maintains that constitutional safeguards will only be effective if the individuals entrusted with implementing them demonstrate independence and integrity.
On the removal of a Chief Justice, Prof. Abavare supports a proposed framework combining an initial determination by an independent panel with a two-thirds parliamentary vote.
He argues that the process must protect judicial officers from politically motivated attempts to remove them while ensuring that legitimate complaints can be investigated and addressed.
In his assessment, the removal proceedings involving Justice Gertrude Torkornoo have underscored the need for a clearer framework that limits opportunities for political interference.
Although he considers the CRC’s proposal broadly acceptable, he wants the final constitutional wording to eliminate any residual executive discretion at the initial stage of a complaint.
He argues that the President should neither trigger nor obstruct the removal process through discretionary action.
Instead, he proposes that the President’s role should be limited to a final, ceremonial step after the prescribed independent and parliamentary procedures have been completed.
The aim, he says, should be to ensure that decisions concerning the removal of a Chief Justice are guided by transparent constitutional procedures rather than political considerations.
Assessing the proposals collectively, Prof. Abavare argues that the reforms could improve judicial accountability, reduce delays and make the justice system more accessible to citizens.
He believes the proposed Supreme Court cap would help prevent recurring controversies over the size of the apex court, while the fixed tenure for the Chief Justice could make leadership transitions more predictable.
The proposed restructuring of the appellate system could reduce the burden of litigation, while integrating District and Circuit Courts into the Judiciary could strengthen the institutions responsible for resolving disputes at the community level.
However, he cautions that the reforms must be accompanied by adequate funding, careful constitutional drafting and credible implementation.
He particularly emphasises the need to safeguard judicial appointments and removal proceedings against political influence, warning that the credibility of the new framework could be compromised if its first appointments are perceived as partisan.
He therefore calls on citizens to remain vigilant and hold the Council of State, Parliament and other relevant institutions accountable for their decisions under any reformed system.
Prof. Abavare concludes that Ghanaians should support most of the CRC’s proposed judicial reforms, describing them as an opportunity to strengthen judicial independence, improve efficiency and rebuild public confidence in the administration of justice.
He insists, however, that the proposed 15-member Supreme Court cap must be placed within the Constitution’s fully entrenched provisions to prevent its alteration without a referendum.
He also calls for stronger safeguards governing the appointment and removal of the Chief Justice, alongside adequate financial support for the lower courts.
For him, the ultimate test of the reforms will be whether they produce a Judiciary that is independent, efficient and accessible, with the Supreme Court focused on matters of national importance and lower courts adequately equipped to serve ordinary Ghanaians.
His commentary, “Capping the Bench, Freeing the Docket,” forms part of his broader examination of the CRC’s proposals for constitutional reform and their implications for Ghana’s governance and democratic institutions.
By 1960news.com
