1 month ago
23 ARTICLE AD
Nominee for Supreme Court Justice, Sophia Rosseta Bernasko Essah,says she is committed to her judicial oath stating that fairness will be her guiding principles if she gets the nod to sit on the bench of the apex court.
According to her, the judiciary held a “priestly place” in the administration of justice and judges must live above board in the discharge of their duties.
“I am committed to my oath and the oath is sacred to me. I view the constitution as akin to the ark of covenant and myself as a judge, one of the priestly class to guard, protect and ensure compliance with the principles of the law, I cannot depart from my oath,” she stated.
Justice Essah made this commitment in response to a question from the Minority Leader, Dr Cassiel Ato Forson, when she appeared before the Appointments Committee of Parliament in Accra on Tuesday for her vetting.
Dr Forson, MP, Ajumako/ Enyan/Esiam wanted to know how the nominee, a Justice of the Court of Appeal, would deal with “impartiality and bias” when she gets the nod.
The Constitution, the nominee said held sway in her rulings since her appointment as a Justice of the High Court in 2011, and that she would not depart from that.
“I’ll pay due allegiance to the constitution, to the law and the law is against discrimination, bias or arbitrariness and so I cannot allow my personal views, inclinations of perceptions influence any judgement that I will render.
“So I stick to the law as it is and admitting all other ways of interpreting the law as is done in adjudication,” she stated.
Justice Essah’s vetting was delayed by more than two hours after Bawku Central MP, Mahama Ayariga, sought to challenge the authority of the President to nominate justices to the court exceeding the ten lower limit.
Citing Article 128(1) of the 1992 Constitution which says “the Supreme Court shall consist of the Chief Justice and not less than nine other justices of the Supreme Court,” Mahama Ayariga argued that having more than the stipulated numbers at the court was inconsistent with Constitution and prayed the committee to adjourn, notify plenary of the observations and a decision taken going forward.
But responding to that interpretation, another nominee, Professor Richard Frimpong Oppong, said the purposive interpretation of the article meant that the Constitution sets a lower floor but puts no cap on the upper limit.
“From my perspective, the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution supports the view that there can be more than 10 justices on the Supreme Court,” he said.
In his view, history and convention must be taken into account in interpreting the Constitution and “I think that convention has developed in relation to this provision that there have always been more than 10 justices on the Supreme Court though it varies from time to time.”
The report of the duo are set to be put before the plenary of the House when it reconvenes in October.
BY JULIUS YAO PETETSI
