Ghana's Judicial System Accused of Favoring Politically Exposed Persons

Key Takeaways

• The Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party, Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, also known as Chairman Wontumi, has been sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment for illegal mining activities.
• Lead counsel for Chairman Wontumi, Samuel Atta Akyea, has criticized the pace of prosecution, alleging that the judicial system prioritizes politically exposed persons.
• Atta Akyea questioned the disparity in the handling of Chairman Wontumi's case compared to ordinary criminal and civil cases.

The Ghanaian judicial system has come under scrutiny for its handling of politically exposed persons, with lead counsel for the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, questioning the pace of prosecution. Chairman Wontumi was recently sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment for illegal mining activities.

According to Atta Akyea, the judicial system appears to be prioritizing political cases over other matters, with cases involving politicians being fast-tracked and given more urgency than ordinary criminal and civil cases.

Background & Context

The Ghanaian justice delivery system allows judges considerable discretion in scheduling cases, with adjournments often stretching over several weeks or even months. However, Atta Akyea argued that this was not the experience in Chairman Wontumi's trial, which was handled under a markedly different regime.

Chairman Wontumi's case was handled in a special court, with the judge insisting that all parties attend court simultaneously, creating an impression that politically significant criminal cases are deliberately fast-tracked.

Key Findings

Atta Akyea questioned whether judges devote the same level of commitment and urgency to civil litigation, particularly land disputes, as they do to high-profile criminal prosecutions involving politicians. He drew on his experience as a legal practitioner, stating that judges handling civil matters often schedule hearings over extended periods and allow lengthy adjournments.

Atta Akyea also argued that the same urgency is not extended to other criminal matters before the courts, suggesting that the judges may be giving more attention to political criminal cases.

Broader Implications

The allegations of favoritism in the judicial system have broader implications for the rule of law and the perception of fairness in Ghana. If true, such allegations could undermine trust in the judiciary and create an uneven playing field for those accused of crimes.

Atta Akyea's comments also raise questions about the independence of the judiciary and the potential for political interference in the justice delivery system.

Looking Ahead

The recent sentencing of Chairman Wontumi has sparked debate about the role of politics in the justice delivery system. As the case continues to unfold, it remains to be seen whether the allegations of favoritism will be addressed and the judicial system held accountable.

The case highlights the need for transparency and accountability in the justice delivery system, with a focus on ensuring that all cases are handled fairly and without undue influence.