A Justice of the Supreme Court of Ghana, Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, has dismissed widespread public perceptions that judges decide cases based on political considerations, describing such beliefs as myths that undermine confidence in the judiciary.
Speaking on the Citi Breakfast Show on Wednesday, July 8, as part of activities marking the Supreme Court’s 150th anniversary, Justice Kulendi outlined what he described as common misconceptions about the judiciary, insisting that judges are bound by law rather than political affiliation.
“I call them myths,” he said.
Responding to the perception that judges tailor their decisions to favour the political interests of the presidents who appoint them, Justice Kulendi said every judge takes an oath to administer justice impartially.
“Some people think that judges decide cases based on politics rather than based on law,” he said.
“I call it a myth because the judge’s textbook is the law. Of course, every judge is a human being. The judge, I’m sure, votes. The judge may have political preferences. But you take an oath, and you take the oath to adjudicate cases according to the law, the evidence, the facts that are demonstrated before you.”
He noted that an examination of judicial decisions would show that judges have ruled against the interests of governments regardless of which president appointed them.
“You will see that judges have reached conclusions irrespective of which president appointed them,” he said.
Justice Kulendi explained that constitutional safeguards, including security of tenure and guaranteed post-retirement benefits, are deliberately designed to protect judicial independence and insulate judges from political pressure.
“Judges have a security of tenure. Judges even have security of post-retirement benefits. It’s to create the environment that you can thrive, you can be independent-minded, you can deal with the matter without fear or favour.”
He also rejected the notion that an unpopular judgment is necessarily a wrong one, stressing that judges are required to apply the law even when the outcome is personally or publicly undesirable.
“The decision doesn’t have to be popular. It has to be consistent with law and with the tenets of law,” he said.
Justice Kulendi revealed that judges sometimes deliver rulings that directly affect themselves, their relatives or friends, but must nonetheless remain faithful to their constitutional oath.
“We reach conclusions we don’t like, but that is the dictate of the law. And if you want to show fidelity to the law and your oath, you have to reach that conclusion.”
Addressing concerns over delays in the administration of justice, Justice Kulendi said it was inaccurate to attribute every delay to judicial incompetence or corruption.
He explained that legal proceedings are governed by complex procedural rules that can be exploited by litigants and lawyers seeking to prolong cases, while judges must carefully balance fairness with efficient case management.
“There are rules of procedure that are very intricate. They are able to abuse and manipulation by lawyers and litigants who have a bad case,” he said.
He acknowledged that logistical challenges, heavy caseloads and, in some instances, judicial efficiency can also contribute to delays.
“The delays have a variety of reasons, other than that the judge is either incompetent or the judge is corrupt,” he said.
Justice Kulendi further challenged the belief that the Supreme Court can intervene in every dispute brought before it, stressing that the apex court’s authority is limited by the Constitution.
“The Supreme Court itself is governed by the Constitution and can only do such things as are warranted and permitted by the Constitution and in relation to which it is vested with jurisdiction,” he said.
