Renowned legal scholar and public interest advocate, Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, has raised alarm over the recent nomination of seven Justices of the Court of Appeal to Ghana’s Supreme Court, describing the move as structurally unsound, financially burdensome, and politically questionable.
President John Dramani Mahama, acting in accordance with Article 144(2) of the 1992 Constitution, has proposed the elevation of seven new judges to the apex court, expanding its bench from 12 to 19. The move, however, has attracted criticism from Prof. Asare, a Democracy and Development Fellow in Public Law and Justice at CDD-Ghana.
In a detailed commentary posted to his Facebook page, Prof. Asare made it clear that his concerns were not about the individual merit or competence of the nominees—many of whom he has previously defended—but rather about the broader implications of enlarging the Supreme Court.
“A bench of nineteen raises serious concerns about judicial effectiveness,” Prof. Asare stated. “It could lead to delays in decision-making, difficulty in achieving consensus, fragmented judgments, and diluted judicial accountability.”
He drew international comparisons, pointing out that the U.S. Supreme Court operates efficiently with nine justices, South Africa with eleven, and Kenya with only seven. “There is no justification for Ghana to have one of the largest Supreme Courts in the world,” he argued.
Beyond effectiveness, Prof. Asare questioned whether the judiciary is logistically and financially prepared for the expansion. “Where will the new justices sit? Are there enough chambers, clerks, and administrative staff? Has Parliament allocated a budget for this sudden enlargement?”
He also criticized the state of the judiciary’s infrastructure and case management, noting that current backlogs and inefficiencies are less about judicial numbers and more about poor systems.
“This is not a solution to our problems—it’s a diversion,” he warned. “Expanding the court without addressing systemic inefficiencies only exacerbates our institutional weaknesses.”
