Chief Justice Paul Baffoe Bonnie spoke his mind last week about what he might have seen as the magical transformation of the hospitality business of the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT), within the past 20 months under the management appointed by President John Dramani Mahama as compared to the management for eight years under the Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo era.
Based on what he heard in 2024 and in 2026, he has applauded the achievements in 2026 and condemned that of 2024, insinuating what could have caused the difference, but for leadership failure.
Some have reduced the commentary into trivialities as to whether the Chief Justice, as a citizen, cannot express his candid opinion about issues of national importance, but what is at issue are the comments, not a mere expression of an opinion, but judgement that must be based on objective value-loaded facts.
Whereas there is no law restricting the Chief Justice from touring public institutions and organisations, there is equally no law that bounds him to undertake such tours.
Thus, when he independently decides to visit such institutions, and expresses an opinion or pass comments about what he hears and what the public knows, he must note that the public will hold him to account.
More importantly, any such visits whether formal or informal must not be behind closed doors, but open to the general public who have the right to know what their Chief Justice is saying and for the Chief Justice to understand that once he involves himself in issues of public interest, his status as a judge can no longer shield him from open public discourse, which could enhance or dent the image of the judiciary.
Somebody has said that ” a free man when he fails could blame no other”, whilst Lord Denning, one of the noteable jurists in the British Judicial history, has admonished judges to allow their conduct to define them, since they must not and cannot engage the public in open discourse.
Our elders have a proverb, “se wo fira ntomago a, wonni apripragoro”, loosely translated as: if you are wearing torn cloth, you do not engage in reckless display of stretching clothes.
There is also “se kokoram amfere se obeto nase nantini a, ono nso mfere se ode asaawa anaa ntomago bekyekyere” literally, if a sore does not have any respect for the in-law by attacking the heel, the in-law would not be restrained for covering it with cotton or rag.
Public discusson
In the midst of public discussion, some skewed by partisan interests and considerations, but mostly informed by the national interest, Ms Elizabeth Ohene, who for four years chaired the SSNIT board and took over from the respected politician and public servant, Dr Kwame Addo Kufuor, in a very polite, circumscribed and rational tone, has challenged the Chief Justice to justify his comments in the face of the facts about the prudent management of SSNIT, from where the New Patriotic Party (NPP) took over in 2017.
She only stopped short of referencing the criminal trials about the rot at SSNIT, which were aborted, when the National Democratic Congress (NDC) took power in 2025 and the Attorney General, Dr Dominic Ayine, entered nolle prosequi.
Whilst sober minds were reflecting over the statement from Ms Ohene came a bombshell. A travesty of an official explanation for an individual act, from the Judicial Secretary, affirming that the Chief Justice spoke and said all that he said in good faith. “Se wonni biribi ma wase a, wommo no kronoo”, to wit, if you have nothing to offer to your in-law, you do not steal from him or her.
The statement from the Judicial Secretary, to the effect that “the Chief Justice has taken note of the mixed public reaction to some observations he made recently on the performance of state-owned entities during an outreach engagement.
The observations were made in good faith and were not intended to serve a purpose inimical to judicial independence.
The Chief Justice remains committed to upholding the integrity and independence of the Judiciary and the promotion of justice and equality before the law”, is not tenable.
Dormant Account Notice
The reference to a general tour of entities during an outreach programme, does not admit the specific instance of SSNIT and looks propagandistic than a reaction from a Public Affairs or Public Relations perspective.
That immediately undermines the tone of the explanation and the value to place upon it.
It only suggests that the Chief Justice is not reflecting upon the negative implications of his comments beyond praise singers, the delusion from partisans clouding the wider spectrum of public discourse and the impact of criticism or discourse analysis.
Questions
There are a number of questions that beg for answers.
Was the engagement formal with a prepared speech for the Chief Justice as a guide? If there was no official speech, how does the Judicial Secretary respond to issues?
Was the statement dictated to him by the Chief Justice?
It is equally relevant to ask whether the Public Affairs or Public Relations department was involved in the crafting of the statement.
The worry is that instead of defusing the debate, the statement has diffused the tension to the extent of destroying the image of the Judiciary.
It has brought oil to fire.
For if the Chief Justice said what he said in good faith then it was deliberate.
In any case, how does that good faith promote justice, equality and assurance of the integrity of the Judiciary?
Public Relations is never about propaganda, and thus, when it is realised that something has been said or done in error, there could be an expression of resentment even where a full apology may sound condescending.
The statement could have noted the reactions and given the assurance that it was not intended as suspected and, accordingly, if some members of the public feel discomforted, there is regret for any inconvenience.
That could assuage sentiments.
As it is, the statement might have caused more outrage at a time that public reaction was slowing down.
Returning to whether the comments were formal or informal, it must be noted that if the comments were contained in a formal speech then the Chief Justice was misled.
However, if they were off the cuff comments then it does not take the Judicial Secretary to respond to the public reactions.
In future, the Chief Justice must be helped with guided outlines even if he prefers to speak than read.
The 1992 Constitution, provides basically the functions of the Chief Justice as, “The Chief Justice shall, subject to this Constitution, be the head of the Judiciary and shall be responsible for the administration and supervision of the Judiciary”.
Nowhere is he enjoined to organise outreach programmes to engage public bodies and make comments on what he observes.
That means what he did is discretionary.
That is where the problem lies, the crux of the matter.
Article 296, which talks about the exercise of discretionary power, provides that ” Where in this Constitution or in any other law discretionary power is vested in any person or authority, (a) that discretionary power shall be deemed to imply a duty to be fair and candid (b) the exercise of the discretionary power shall not be arbitrary, capricious or biased either by resentment, prejudice or personal dislike and shall be in accordance with the process of law”.
As citizens we all have the discretionary power to make comment about all matters of public interest, that includes the Chief Justice.
It is from this perspective that some people are dreaming into what could amount to an abuse of process or biased judicial interpretation because the comments have elicited dysfunctional suggestions which can be said to be fair in the face of the comments by the Chief Justice and the objective facts.
That the hospitality business is a collective drain on the financial resources of SSNIT is not imaginary.
That the hotel at La is doing well is equally not an issue. But the same cannot be said about the other hotels in the SSNIT chain.
With the sober presentation from Ms Ohene, without any attack on the integrity of the Chief Justice, how would he measure what he heard from the current management of the SSNIT, most of whom were not there in the past eight years and what prevailed during the past eight years and the years before 2017?
Has he done any ratio analysis of all the investment portfolios of SSNIT to find out the profitability levels?
Did Chief Justice Baffoe Bonnie try to find out remittances from government to SSNIT, which could be one of the most productive means of assurance of the sustainability of the scheme?
