Ghana’s Chief Justice, Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, has rejected the notion that the number of Supreme Court justices in Ghana should be compared to that of the United States.
In a detailed letter to President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, Justice Torkornoo explained that the two countries have distinct systems of government, with the US operating a federal system and Ghana a unitary state.
This fundamental difference means that the US has multiple Supreme Courts, with each state having its own, while Ghana has only one Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court has limited jurisdiction, primarily focusing on federal law interpretation, inter-state disputes, and constitutional matters.
In contrast, Ghana’s Supreme Court has a broader jurisdiction, handling all constitutional interpretation cases, supervisory jurisdiction actions, final appeals in criminal and civil cases, and presidential election petitions.
Moreover, the SCOG has no discretion to selectively choose which cases to hear, unlike the SCOTUS, which has a rigorous process for selecting cases to consider.
Justice Torkornoo emphasized that the comparison between the two courts is unfounded, given the different structures and jurisdictions of the two systems. She highlighted that the SCOG has a significantly heavier workload than the SCOTUS, with no authority to apply selective criteria to pick cases to hear.
Instead, the SCOG is required to hear all matters filed, regardless of their merit, making the comparison between the two courts unfair and unjustified.
The Chief Justice’s argument aims to contextualize the role and workload of the Supreme Court in Ghana, emphasizing the need to consider the unique circumstances of each country’s judicial system rather than relying on simplistic comparisons.
