Retired Justice of the Supreme Court, William Atuguba, has expressed that he would have appointed the late Mr. Akoto Ampaw to the Supreme Court if he had held the power to make judicial appointments.
In a statement reflecting on Mr. Ampaw’s career, Justice Atuguba highlighted his commitment to impartiality, despite Ampaw’s association as a lawyer for President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.
Atuguba’s remarks underscore Ampaw’s dedication to upholding objective standards within his legal practice, even in politically charged contexts.
Justice Atuguba also praised Asante Akim North MP Kwame Andy Appiah-Kubi for similar qualities, noting that he too exemplifies the objectivity and impartiality essential for the judiciary.
“Akoto Ampaw of blessed memory, if I had my way, I would have appointed him to the Supreme Court because of his objectivity,” Atuguba shared during an interview with Joy News on November 12. He added, “The same applies to Andy Appiah Kubi.”
Beyond this tribute, Atuguba used the occasion to remind Ghanaians about the importance of caution when commenting on judicial proceedings, particularly in light of the law of contempt.
He noted that, while courts have been more lenient in recent times, restraint remains necessary to avoid overstepping legal boundaries.
His comments were made in reference to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling regarding the declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant by Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin.
Justice Atuguba urged the public to be cautious in their commentary, stressing that legal interpretations around issues such as contempt demand prudent discourse, especially pending full rulings.
This landmark case, led by NPP parliamentary caucus leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, challenges Speaker Bagbin’s interpretation of the Constitution regarding when seats in Parliament are to be declared vacant.
The Speaker’s decision, originally delivered on October 17, 2024, had deemed these seats vacant based on alleged constitutional violations by the MPs in question.
However, Afenyo-Markin filed an ex parte motion for the Supreme Court to reverse Bagbin’s declaration.
The court’s subsequent stay of execution order on Bagbin’s ruling has prompted a series of legal responses, including an application by Bagbin through his lawyer, Thaddeus Sory, asserting that the Supreme Court’s intervention in this non-judicial decision was a misapplication of the law.
The Speaker further sought the court’s retraction of its stay order, arguing it infringed on his parliamentary prerogatives.
As both sides prepare for the court’s final verdict, Attorney-General Godfred Dame has affirmed his expectation for the Speaker to respect the judicial ruling.
Meanwhile, the judiciary’s handling of the case has sparked a renewed conversation on the balance between legal authority and legislative autonomy.
