RE: “Touch Not the Anointed” — A Constitutionalist’s Response to Prof. Kwesi Yankah
Prof. Kwesi Yankah’s sentimental ode to the suspended Chief Justice regrettably substitutes pathos for principle and identity politics for constitutional fidelity.
Cloaked in humor and nostalgia, his reflection artfully dances around the core issues that those concerned about judicial independence and constitutional governance are asking.
Let us not, on Labor Day, labor to whitewash constitutional infractions.
A. Where Is His Opinion on a CJ Usurping the Judicial Council’s Role?
The article notably sidesteps perhaps the most serious allegation: that the Chief Justice unilaterally selected five individuals she wanted elevated to the Supreme Court—circumventing Article 144(2) of the Constitution. That provision vests nomination power in the President acting on the advice of the Judicial Council, not at the behest of the CJ alone.
Has Prof. asked whether any of her predecessors—Chief Justices Wiredu, Acquah, Wood, or Sophia Akuffo—ever dared such a constitutionally reckless move?
B. Has He Considered the Moral and Institutional Cost to the Judiciary?
What does it do to judicial morale when the CJ bypasses more senior and accomplished justices, without transparency or due process?
What becomes of decisional independence when the Chief Justice reconstitutes panels at will, or issues administrative decrees that bind judges without the authority of a constitutional instrument?
Is he aware that such panel reconstitution undermines not only collegiality but violates the constitutional design of the courts and erodes public confidence?
Judicial independence is not preserved by silence in the face of such infractions—it is betrayed by it.
C. With Respect, This Isn’t About Gender—It’s About Governance.
To frame this moment as an assault on “womanhood” is intellectually disturbing and, frankly, patronizing. The issue here is constitutional conduct, not biological identity. Who attempted to remove Sophia Akuffo?
Let’s not exploit legitimate struggles for gender equity to shield acts of constitutional impropriety. Accountability does not discriminate.
D. Judicial Independence Is Not Personal Immunity.
The idea that holding a Chief Justice accountable somehow undermines judicial independence is a dangerous myth. A judiciary is only as strong as its submission to the law—not its loyalty to personalities.
Let us separate the individual from the institution. No CJ risks removal for staying within their constitutional lane. But when they abandon that lane, the consequences are constitutional—not emotional.
E. Let’s Talk Precedent and Principle.
The learned Prof. invokes the case of Justice I.K. Abban, whose tenure drew protest but did not result in removal. But the issues then—however controversial—do not rise to the current moment. Today, we confront allegations implicating separation of powers, institutional overreach, and improper entanglement with the Presidency.
Where were the defenders of “judicial independence” when this CJ was allegedly visiting havoc on her colleagues through opaque administrative maneuvers?
F. Enough with the Nostalgia and Distractions.
Dancing in church, attending Motown, or delivering eloquent lectures—commendable though these may be—are not qualifications for impunity. The issue is not her biography but her behavior in office.
Let us not be so dazzled by backstory that we lose sight of the Constitution.
Conclusion:
Let us end the fiction that holding the Chief Justice accountable for her actions amounts to an attack on the judiciary.
It is precisely because we value judicial integrity that we insist on accountability. The country deserves strong institutions—not untouchable individuals.
Hands off the Constitution—not just Gertrude.
Truth stands as Bacchus teaches us, and as my Viking friend undoubtedly agrees, regardless of how sentiment may seek to cloud constitutional clarity
Da Yie!
