How revamping the jury system can improve justice delivery – Naa Kwaamah Siaw-Marfo writes
Ghana’s jury system is integral to our criminal justice framework but faces significant challenges.
Juror strikes over unpaid allowances and the repeated use of a limited pool of jurors continue to undermine its efficiency and credibility.
Over the years, these issues have delayed high-profile trials, raising concerns about the system’s effectiveness. The newly sworn-in Attorney General, Dominic Ayine, has a critical responsibility to address these challenges and safeguard the integrity of Ghana’s judicial process.
In many other common law countries, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, jury systems are structured to ensure fair representation and adequate compensation for jurors. In the United States, jurors are randomly selected from a broad pool and receive stipends, transport allowances, and, in some cases, employer compensation protections. The UK provides jurors with financial allowances covering loss of earnings, travel, and meal expenses. Similarly, Canada offers financial support and robust institutional frameworks to ensure impartiality and efficiency.
However, in Ghana, our jury system relies heavily on a small group of individuals who are often recycled for multiple cases. This practice undermines the credibility and fairness of the system, as the same jurors become overly familiar with legal proceedings, potentially affecting their objectivity. The non-payment of juror allowances has led to several strikes, resulting in the suspension of numerous critical cases. In October 2023, jurors began a strike over eight months of unpaid allowances, leading to the stalling of the trial of 14 individuals accused in the death of Major Maxwell Mahama.
Similarly, in May 2024, jurors declared an indefinite strike due to ten months of unpaid allowances, resulting in the adjournment of all indictable cases, including murder trials, across the High Courts.
In June 2024, ten high-profile cases, including one involving the murder of Otumfuo Osei Tutu’s Akyempimhene, as well as other murder and rape cases being heard at the High Court in Kumasi, were halted due to juror strikes in the Ashanti region.
A critical issue compounding the challenges within Ghana’s jury system is the practice of “career jurors,” where a select group of individuals is repeatedly empanelled for multiple cases.
This practice is affecting the delivery of justice in Ghana, as frequent appearances make these jurors easily recognisable, potentially exposing them to undue influence or threats.
Jurors handling multiple cases simultaneously can cause scheduling conflicts, leading to adjournments and prolonged trials.
The continuous reliance on a small pool of jurors undermines the principle of a jury representing a cross-section of society, which is essential for impartiality.
The 1992 Constitution of Ghana, while not explicitly detailing the operations of the jury system, emphasises the right to a fair trial. Article 19(1) guarantees that “a person charged with a criminal offence shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court.” However, delays caused by juror strikes and the recycling of jurors violate this provision, depriving defendants of timely justice.
To strengthen Ghana’s jury system, the Attorney General, Dominic Ayine, should consider implementing public awareness campaigns and revising eligibility criteria to encourage broader participation.
Collaboration is also needed with Parliament to amend existing laws, clearly defining jurors’ rights, responsibilities, and protections. A dedicated fund should be established to ensure timely payment of juror allowances, preventing future strikes. The Judiciary must also set up monitoring systems to assess and improve jury selection and management.
For the jury system to function effectively, all Ghanaians must recognise jury service as a civic duty. Diverse participation enhances credibility and ensures impartial verdicts.
The judiciary, executive, Parliament, civil society, and media must work together on comprehensive reforms. Policymakers should prioritise legislative changes, while public education campaigns should highlight the importance of jury duty in upholding justice and the rule of law.