Former Gomoa West Member of Parliament, Alexander Abban, has cautioned political actors against undermining public confidence in Ghana’s judiciary through their comments on court decisions.
According to him, the tendency by politicians to criticise or praise the judiciary based on whether rulings favour their interests risks weakening the credibility of the justice system.
Speaking on The Big Issue on Saturday, August 1, Abban said politicians must be measured in their public commentary on judicial matters to prevent Ghanaians from losing faith in the courts.
“Politicians themselves should refrain from bastardising the judiciary. Otherwise, before we realise, we, by our own utterances, would get Ghanaians to lose faith in the judiciary,” he said.
He argued that political parties have, at different times, contributed to the perception that the judiciary is influenced by political considerations, depending on whether they are in government or opposition.
Abban noted that while one party may defend the judiciary when a decision favours it, the same party may later criticise the institution when the outcome is unfavourable.
“What is playing out is because at one time or the other, those in government now may have said something bad against the judiciary, those not in government now may have said something in favour of the judiciary, and at a time that they were also not in government, they may have said something bad against the judiciary,” he added.
His comments come after the New Patriotic Party (NPP) criticised the Court of Appeal’s decision to acquit and discharge former Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC) Chief Executive Officer, Sedina Christine Tamakloe-Attionu.
The Court of Appeal on Thursday, July 30, overturned an earlier High Court conviction that had sentenced Madam Tamakloe-Attionu to 10 years in prison over offences linked to the management of MASLOC funds.
The NPP described the court’s decision as politically motivated and alleged that the outcome was carefully orchestrated.
But the former lawmaker maintained that disagreements over judicial decisions should be addressed through appropriate legal channels rather than political commentary that could cast doubt on the integrity of the courts.
He stressed that protecting the independence and reputation of the judiciary should be a collective responsibility, especially among political leaders whose statements can influence public perception.
