Deputy Speakers express contrary views on Afreh's appointment

The two Deputy Speakers of Parliament on Wednesday expressed contrary views on the timing of the nomination of an Appeal Court Judge, Mr Justice Kwame Afreh to the Supreme Court.

Mr Freddie Blay, First Deputy Speaker saw nothing wrong with the timing while Mr Ken Dzirasah, Second Deputy condemned it on moral grounds because of the government's declared intention to seek a review of the Supreme Court ruling on the unconstitutionality of the Fast Track Court.

Speaking in separate interviews with the Ghana News Agency on the legal, political and moral implications of elevating a new judge to enlarge the number of justices on the Highest Court of the land for the review.

Mr Blay said; "the timing is extremely logical in a crisis situation such as we have on hand and it is during such times that crucial decisions are taken". He said; "it is a constitutional issue and it is equally necessary that the panel to review the case must be enlarged because it was all the nine sitting members that earlier sat on the case. There is no other time that the nomination could be made to make up the number"

Mr Blay said the Supreme Court "is a quasi political set up and there are several precedents in legal history and it is not peculiar to Ghana alone". Mr Dzirasah said when Mr Afreh ascends to the Supreme Court and sat on the review panel, "he will be battling with his conscience in taking a decision on the issue".

"It is purely not only a legal issue but a moral one as well and it is ridiculous for people to believe that morality does not count in law. If a moral issues does not count in legality we would have people without conscience ruling us."

He said; "you must have a democratic governance with morality and it is the way governments react to judicial decisions that will have a far reaching effect on the judiciary". Mr Dzirasah said it was pre-emptive for the Minister of Justice to seek a review whilst the reasons for the judgement were not known.

He said; "it is on the basis of the reasons that one will seize to pursue a review and if one did not know the basis. What happens if the reasons later adduced turn out to be satisfying would one then decided not to go in for a review?"