Yaw Nsarkoh Speech: Even Judges Must Eat: An Outside-In Provocation

(DEDICATED TO PROFESSOR JOHN MEYER HYDE – 1938 to 2026)

“One must say Yes to life and embrace it wherever it is found—and it is found in terrible places. … For nothing is fixed, forever and forever and forever, it is not fixed; the earth is always shifting, the light is always changing, the sea does not cease to grind down rock. Generations do not cease to be born, and we are responsible to them because we are the only witnesses they have. The sea rises, the light fails, lovers cling to each other and children cling to us. The moment we cease to hold each other, the moment we break faith with one another, the sea engulfs us and the light goes out.”

James Baldwin. “Nothing Personal.” New York: Dial Press, 1964.

“He who dances to old drums will stumble on new ground.” – African proverb

Greetings and salutation: It is not altogether clear even to me, how I ended up with this responsibility. I have never sued anyone in my life, never been sued by anyone, and to put it plainly, never been in court as a witness, accused, or defendant. Yet, some of these lawyers who pretend to be my friends managed to convince me that I should make some remarks at this event. They are intended as a provocation, for more capable people who will be discussing the broader theme in a panel constructed to do just that. We will see whether anyone can call a lawyer a friend, or whether I will leave here today fully convinced that lawyers deserve to be buried face-down when they die. That is of course just a joke, the last, perhaps that this intimidating audience of distinguished intellectuals will permit me.

Thanks for inviting me to share some candid thoughts at this event. I dedicate this intervention to my recently departed mentor, the great Professor John Hyde. I do not know whether he would have agreed with everything I have to say today, but I do know that – like he did all his adult life – he would have stridently defended my right to say it. John Hyde is gone to the ancestors, but here on earth, in his honour and after the example he set for us all, it is A luta continua.

Toni Morrison once shared in one of her many profound reflections that: “I tell my students, ‘When you get these jobs that you have been so brilliantly trained for, just remember that your real job is that if you are free, you need to free somebody else. If you have some power, then your job is to empower somebody else. This is not just a grab-bag candy game.”1

We must reflect on this statement quite a bit, for it should speak to us all, as trained professionals. First, she was speaking to people of my generation and after. Second, like many of you here these people were professionals. Third, she was pointing out to us all that whatever heights we claim to have reached as individuals, if the societies we call ours are broken and unjust in significant ways, we have a duty to try to make them better. It does not seem to me that any part of this can be controversial.

Looking at it from the bottom up, Amilcar Cabral had argued more than six decades ago, with words I can never stop repeating: “Always bear in mind that the people are not fighting for ideas, for the things in anyone’s head. They are fighting to win material benefits, to live better and in peace, to see their lives go forward to guarantee the future of their children.”2

It is difficult to see how we can define a serious and meaningful purpose for the existence of any profession if its key outcomes are decoupled from moving society forward. Indeed, there can be no historical task more important for this generation of Africans, than one which indefatigably works to liberate the productive forces in order to improve livelihoods and secure the long-term health of society. Development must aim at radically improving the well-being of ALL our compatriots, especially those mired in the indignities of poverty.

What else does the judicial process exist for if not to promote justice in society? Justice is a capacious concept. To achieve it sustainably and meaningfully requires a significant reordering of society and the social relations within them. Justice may sometimes involve punitive interventions, but at its best it is holistically restorative. Justice involves everything that gives human societies and individuals access to dignity. It certainly is not just what our media gives the impression of so often; lawyers bickering to score partisan points – on TV, or in court rooms. There is so much more to life and society than this pervasive media lawyering and fixation on short-term financial metrics that neoliberalism spawns.

We are being beaten by the rain:

We are living in a strange moment right now. Our system of government, the Santa Claus Democracy, in most actual realities lies inert, supine, paralysed, impotent and even somewhat confused, despite some of the existential threats we face as a people.

The existential threat of Galamsey – illegal mining, a wanton ecocide that endangers our collective future marches on. The water bodies have yellowed, the murderous toxicity of its implications continues to spread; we endanger the living and the unborn, yet the state seems helpless to stop it – party come, party go.

The land administration situation in even our capital city, Accra, has features of outright chaos. Dawn demolitions of completed buildings; buildings on illegal sites that then block waterways, and as sure as night follows day submerges millions under floods every June, have become a way of life. In June, the videos do the rounds, there is outrage, politicians express concern and regret. Then comes August, the rains stop, citizens move on to other subjects, sometimes even to discuss trivia like leaked secret recordings of people they do not knows intimacy. Then June comes around again and catches us all unprepared – yet another time.

Our democracy project, or rather what we call democracy, suffers the ugly and dangerous blights of vigilante actions in too many aspects of our national character. The macho men of our politics – Delta Forces, Invincible Forces, and so on – have now become an almost normalised feature of our broken politics. Thugs, hoodlums, brigands and highway men, carry combat grade weapons and act with impunity before the very eyes of the state. They are dangerous elements, propelled often and regularly, by the agency of the politically powerful. On one occasion, a sitting High Court was invaded, the assailants got away with impunity, only for some of them to rise again as members of the national executives of major political parties. These are furiously blinking lights that not all is well with governance in this country.

To be sure, not everything is in a state of collapse. But, for sure, there is too much poverty, misery, and suffering among many of our compatriots. The well-to-do see life go on in a measure of dignity, but for some – the many in fact – life is a daily battle. To this group, those who know no one in high places, every passing day is a reminder that Jean Jacques Rousseau was right: “Man is born free; and (yet) everywhere he is in chains.”3

The reggae heads among you will understand Bob Marley better in such times: For many, it is a misty morning, and we don’t see no sun! There is panic in the city, (yet the) wicked (are) weeping for their (Galamsey?) gold!

In search of justice:

Four words that cannot be left out of any serious search for harmony in society are DIGNITY, DEVELOPMENT, FREEDOM, and JUSTICE. The last two made it on to our coat-of-arms, but do we know what they should really mean in 2026 and beyond? Or has the Neoliberal gaze blinded us to anything other than that which relates to GDP numbers?

Amartya Kumar Sen quite capably represents my own views too in this very simple articulation: “Development can be seen as a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy.”4 It is by no means a novel thought, many before Sen had said the same thing in different ways.

The real discussions about how to develop and positively modernise our society in search of such great, aspirational, and noble values and objectives have given way to rabid partisanship, to an extent that threatens to sink this Fourth Republic, with us all in tow. In opposition, the element of the NPP/NDC duopoly that is there blames government for everything that goes wrong. They scream, daily, with ever increasing and frenzied intensity about just how incompetent the party in power is.

But as soon as either of them gets into power, the problem is that citizens expect too much from politicians. We are the problem: it is we who litter, we who build in the wrong places, we who do not pay enough taxes, we who do not act with integrity. In summary, the citizens are the reason the government cannot do more for the citizens. So why do they fight so hard for power, these politicians? If we are the problem, why do they so desperately want to govern us? Just so we can say we have leaders lording it over us?

To some of us Michel Foucault was never more right than when he wrote this axiomatic phrase: “Government is the conduct of conduct.”5 The idea that government of all kinds is somehow not accountable for the state of society is so unreasonable to me I do not wish to spend much time exploding it. It is enough to say, especially in terms of responsibility for positive governance outcomes that, as Hannah Arendt put it in her The Origins of Totalitarianism: “Where all are guilty, no one is.”6

The comments I will make about the Bench and the Bar are situated in that kind of context. It is true that we are all stakeholders of the judicial process, but those who are lead actors in that space must bear more responsibility and own up to what comes with that.

We are not in a good position with this Fourth Republican Santa Claus democracy, let us be honest about that. Only in 2025, last year that is, the Ghana Statistical Services, stated in an important governance report: “over 70% of Ghanaians feel that the current political system provides little or no space for them to influence decision-making.”7

This is a damning and devastating confession. That it was hardly discussed with seriousness by the media, professional groups, religious bodies and so on, says something about the state of our collective consciousness.

Let us simply say we are not in a good place when, however acquired, citizens are witness to judges being bribed with goats and whatever else. We are not in a good place when leaders of the judiciary conduct themselves in ways that lead to quite credible reason to believe they may not be above the partisan fray and fracas. We are not in a good place when fractious intestinal contests for naked power within the judiciary take place before a horrified public. Nɔko yéjɛ ei!

If while that takes place, the Bar seems more focused on whether young lady members wear nose rings or not, one does wonder what is going on. If while Rome burns the Bar comes across as having been fractured by a virulent partisan bug, so that many citizens seem to believe that one party’s lawyers are gathering under another association while those of the other remain in yet another, we are left in deep worry. Are there no longer elders, however defined, in the tradition to bring back solidarity and focus? For heaven’s sake, what in this country will be spared this NDC/NPP virulent partisan attack? Onukpa béjɛɛ lo?

Even Judges Must Eat – we must keep hope alive.

We have come here to orchestrate a needed conversation on some necessary reforms. There is no intention to act as though the Bench and the Bar are peopled by superhuman beings. When systemic problems arise, we have an escapist tendency to expect that individuals will somehow not be caught by the contradictions of the broken system.

Therefore, it is not surprising that even the most unpatriotic Ghanaian will call-in to a media discussion to scream about how Black Stars players must be willing to die for the country. Everywhere, you encounter people screaming about how professional footballers will not sacrifice their careers a bit, so the country can win some major championship.

Even corrupt politicians, even Galamsey operators, even drug barons, join this chorus. Dare I say, even lawyers join. Is it not very ironic that the contradictions do not cause us to pause to reflect?

There is an extent to which Judges are in the same position. Citizens of democracy have watched as the appointment and promotion process of judges has been so badly politicised that both major political parties – when in opposition! – never stop complaining about how skewed the system is. Yet, we also expect the Judges to sacrifice themselves, their families, their careers, in some extreme cases even their lives, so we may have a working system.

The possibility that independent judges that give judgments which rub the political classes and their lackeys the wrong way can end up being victims of arbitrary and illogical transfers, or see their careers ruined by being parked in a sinecure exist as signposts of danger. Only the most foolhardy ignore such perilous prospects, many simply, as we say in Ghana, stay in their lane.

And in that lane they too like many Ghanaian professionals who must contend with the hazards of political victimisation for being on the wrong side, beat the path to professional safety. Careerism takes over and the attitude of “eyes-off, ears-off, hands-off, everything-off” takes over. Like monkeys of Nikko, where power is concerned, they see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. So, the entire society suffers from the ensuing mediocrity. Which professional groups can sincerely say they do not know what I am hinting at? The fate of many Ghanaian professionals in this Witch’s brew of contradictions that the Santa Claus democracy is, is best described by the Ghanaian way of expressing indifference and resignation: Yɛ nom nsa a mose shirt – Ghana dey be brutal.

Poor judges, poor Black Stars players, some people think you do not eat. How many engineers, doctors, architects, trade unionists, academics, directors, etc. are willing to stand up to power in search of what is right? Especially, where there is real danger involved in doing so? If it happened every time, why is the country in the situation it is now? Which professional groups can throw the first stones at the Judges?

But we cannot accept and endorse a race to the bottom by professional groups, so we must discuss needed reforms. The point is that this is not going to be done from a sanctimonious window. It is hoped that the suggestions that will now follow, and the panel discussions that follow will be seen in exactly that light.

I never miss an opportunity to say to groups of elites that when the poor have nothing to eat you will become their food. It may not improve society ultimately, but spontaneous combustions in society do not arise from systematic and rational calculations. They can be violent outbursts of vengeance that knock down whatever is in their way, along whichever faultlines populists exploit opportunistically. Mangana Yamutu!

It is impossible to live safely and in harmony, over the long-term, in a broken society; no matter how high the walls of private residences go; no matter how many security personnel one in illusion thinks he or she has. The best solution to securing the long-term health of society that leads to peace, harmony and stability is to ensure that the popular classes can live in dignity.

Some glimpses, some suggestions

I must have been in my last years of teenage when I encountered the published version of the Aggrey-Fraser-Guggisberg Memorial Lectures organised by the University of Ghana, Legon, in 1975. That lecture, titled “The Judicial Process in Commonwealth West Africa”8 was delivered by the eminent Nigerian legal scholar and jurist, T. O. Elias. This work had a very major influence on my young mind. Elias forcefully and convincingly, in my view, made the point that the judicial process is at its most effective when it seeks a dynamic compromise between the technicalities of legal science and the demands of natural justice in society. He specifically pointed out that judges need both the resources of intellect and vast amounts of courage, because especially in young countries like ours, their work will necessarily involve interstitial lawmaking.

As a lay man to the legal profession, I do not hide my affection for this way of looking at things. For what it is worth, I am fully persuaded that the distinguished jurist and outstanding legal scholar, S. Kofi Date-Bah, is on solid ground in his highly impressive book, “Reflections on the Supreme Court of Ghana,”9 when he forcefully points out that: “There is no doubt that judges do make law. The debate has shifted to the extent to which they make law or should make law.”

AT SOME POINT IN TIME, a French lawyer once told me, ALL POWER CAN BE TEMPTED BY THE ABUSE OF POWER. The history of the human race makes this almost self-evident. That tendencies to derailment of political power exist in society should not be the reason governments become helpless, their task is to put all power in an institutional cage. Xi Jinping knew what he was talking about as a leader of almost a billion and a half people, when he argued that no society can thrive sustainably without placing power in an institutional cage.

We are not saying any of this is easy. Xi Jinping himself would observe:

“Modernization will not fall from the sky. It can only be achieved through hard work and proactive long-term efforts.”10 Hannah Arendt made the same point when she thundered: “The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.” 11

Whatever we end up saying here or elsewhere, whatever constitutional changes we make, whatever pacts we get political parties to sign, change will only come to societies that are willing to think seriously about their predicament, and work hard to achieve progress. I will quote Date-Bah again from the same book:

“The internalisation or convinced acceptance of the values of democracy by a people and their leaders is more important than the constitution and its organs.”9

1. Cultural Revolution Required: As an outsider I remain fascinated by the love of ritual and tradition in this fraternity. Some of this is necessary in all societies, but at what point are modifications and adaptations necessary to enable progressive innovation? Our larger society continues to allow young men to carry dancing chiefs on their heads, in palanquins, and call that culture. What is culture then, is it always beneficial? Why this (manual palanquins) is required in the final quarter of the 27th year of the 21st century is simply incomprehensible to me. But it is a useful illustration of what can go wrong when professions refuse to examine themselves critically.

I have never joined the condemnation of lawyers’ attire and so on. Because I find it rather hypocritical that people who see nothing wrong with wearing academic gowns, choir robes, thick police uniforms, three-piece suits with neck ties, and so on, pick on lawyers so much. I find nothing desirable about the attachment to wigs, but it is not my priority to worry about this.

I am more concerned about the rigid hierarchy that comes close to a professional variety of gerontocratic feudalism which is so brazenly on display sometimes. The naked ageism which uses seniority at the Bar to order cases in court with the excuse that junior lawyers learn from watching seniors, that sort of thing needs to be modified.

Technological evolution makes it possible to properly schedule cases, so that all can plan. Meritocracy is sustained when younger lawyers can then decide for themselves who they dial-in or attend court to observe. Age and experience must be respected, but by themselves they prove nothing.

There is nothing wrong with debate in any profession. But has this professional culture gone too far in its embrace of performative acrimonious posturing? How much theatrical adversarial posturing is needed in modern times? This legacy has a specific set of sociohistorical antecedents, why is it impossible to tone down the aggression routinely showed towards each other? With so many lawyers ending up in parliament that orientation is continued to those chambers. Why must that be the case? Is it impossible to make laws without all this shouting and feigned acrimony we sometimes see? Is it even helpful to the mental health of key actors to conduct business this way? Serious deliberations, even when we disagree, can and should be conducted with some respect and serenity. There are judicial and parliamentary cultures in the world that have moved past this performative boisterousness that we are normalising in some aspects of our political culture. What we need is the will to learn from those and even our own history of governance, especially in traditional communities. We must summon that will.

Moving on, for how long will the judicial process hide behind powers of contempt to discourage even reasonable scrutiny and critical reviews? If judges sit in courts and write into judgments that we have freedom of speech but not freedom after speech, why should we be unsure whether such wanton abuse of power can be described as professionally irresponsible? Power corrupts, judicial power is power too.

There is also the issue of the absence of an independent prosecutor of cabinet rank or equivalent, as happens in some places. A really muscular role that can take on even the mightiest politicians. Our Attorney General (AG) is a member of cabinet, appointed by the president, living in that role at the pleasure of the president. He or she is usually, in a Santa Claus democracy, as partisan as they come. Why are we then surprised when the selection and deselection of cases to prosecute or not prosecute sometimes begin to look suspiciously like the role is being used as an imperial battering ram against political opponents? It is deeply important that no AG is allowed to look like a veritable megaphone of the contemporary incarnations of partisan political projects. But unless systemic changes are made, using the right constitutional amendments in all cases, we are headed there in actuality. Our political culture will breed that outcome.

Again (and again!), these tendencies have shown in governments formed by both main parties, whatever they claim in opposition. We have seen in the last decade even a tendency to return to the bad days when the traits of a Gestapo featured in the incipient criminalisation of speech, de facto. I am all for discipline in society and the discouragement of reckless defamatory talk. Democracy is not the same as disorder.

But what is happening when the state which cannot contain illegal miners, Galamsey, now turns its full aggression on people who make one impolitic post on Facebook? How can we rationalise these sometimes very loose uses of serious charges like treason? Where will this train stop? Or shall we too just watch things slide dangerously along the road to perdition, while in selfish detachment the legitimate concerns and criticisms of citizens are ignored with nonchalant indifference? As our political leaders seem to say dismissively to us ordinary citizens: beyifuɔ koraa bewu, na konkonsa ni?

Much of my adult life I have managed perceptions to build brands. Not once have I encountered a situation where comical mystique, opacity and institutional aloofness, serve the long-term interests of a professional group. It is neither in the interest of society nor of the Bench and the Bar themselves, to allow a minority in their midst that drive such poor perceptions to go unchallenged.

It is dangerous to give the impression that you take yourselves too seriously. But that is exactly what happens when judicial powers seem misused or abused too often, with people too frightened to make critical comments. Any system that does not build competent feedback loops to enable innovation and adaptation will eventually atrophy, shrivel, and die. For it will soon only represent the interest of one dominant class in society, not the entire society.

2. Funding: According to the 2025 World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, Ghana ranks 63rd globally and 7th in Sub-Saharan Africa, with a score of about 0.56. This places Ghana ahead of Kenya, which is ranked 102nd globally and 13th in the region, but still behind Rwanda (39th globally, 1st in Africa) and South Africa (60th globally, 6th in Africa). Singapore, also a country with a similar colonial history as Ghana, remains in a different league altogether, ranked 16th globally with one of the highest scores worldwide.

In comparative terms, Ghana is not merely behind global leaders like Singapore; it is behind regional reformers such as Rwanda and South Africa. The gap is structural, persistent, and widening — a clear indication that Ghana’s judicial system is significantly under‑resourced relative to its governance ambitions and economic needs.

I bring this up merely to underline that the needed revolution in this space will require funding, and I am very aware of that. Everything else will remain mere fantasy if funding remains the principal constraint. To ignore this will be to simply float in the skies.

My well-known position on the Neoliberal Road is that it inevitably leads to a Santa Claus Democracy, which in turn yields a Palanquin Economy. In a palanquin economy the many slave to carry the few until you get a Robinson Crusoe Society. In that, conditions of anomie are writ large over everything. Then the dreams of ordinary citizens left too long unattended explode – sometimes violently. We know what then follows, no one is spared as the mob screams in frenzy: Ɛnyɛ obi na ɔkum Antwi, Obiara bɛgye ne blɛdi fool afe yi.

It is fashionable these days to then call for greater allocation to the sector as a percentage of GDP. Every sector – utilities, health, education, agriculture, infrastructure – has a good argument for wanting a bit more of the GDP allocated to it. But the greater problem lies elsewhere; our economy is simply too small for 34 million people; therefore, we can inevitably find no optimal way to distribute resources in order to deliver our priorities. The neoliberal road has, alas, left us stranded at a junction where we are unable to fund even our critical requirements as a society. While we work out how to get back on the road to serious development and inclusive growth, not superficial financial metrics, we must tighten our operations management.

Operations management: There is not enough time to develop this argument, but we must get seasoned planners and operations managers to look at the end-to-end judicial process, with a view to optimising service to citizens. I suggest that groups like the Ghana Institution of Engineering, the same for project managers and planners, be involved in this effort.

Everywhere, there is talk of too few judges, too few court rooms, etc. But who is doing the detailed factor analysis to ensure that the right problem is being solved? That there are so many land disputes clogging all stages of our judicial process, that there are several land courts, that so many judgments are written about land, must suggest to a serious society that land reforms are needed. The problems of society are not then resolved by appointing more judges. Why does our politics avoid this?

We could say the same about funeral related conflicts; about the rampant issues to do with chieftaincy, and more. Society must deal with its fundamental problems of governance, not just outsource them to underfunded courts. We must resolve problems of society with a fundamental and systematic understanding of the root causes, not just their symptoms. In this effort, we must leverage technology, not fear it. Properly used technology liberates capabilities, it can have positive revolutionary outcomes.

3. Taming The Partisan Context: The judicial process is the last institutional line of defence in a functioning democracy; I would like to argue. The people, all of us that is, must do all in their power to ensure that the judiciary does not succumb to partisan capture.

Across the life of the Fourth Republic, Ghana’s judiciary has been perceived as vulnerable to political influence, and this perception is reinforced by comparative data. Not because citizens suddenly became cynical, but because the data have moved in one direction for two decades. Afrobarometer’s long‑run series is the clearest indicator: in 2002, 61% of Ghanaians said they trusted the courts; by 2022 that figure had fallen to 38%, and 57% believed judges were influenced by political leaders. These are not partisan accusations; they are empirical signals from independent institutions that the judiciary’s insulation has weakened.

The perception has been hardened by political practice. Since 2000, every administration has used its appointment powers aggressively, but the concentration of Supreme Court appointments in the hands of sitting presidents has made the pattern unmistakable: between 2017 and 2024 alone, over 70% of the Court’s members were appointed by a single president. Not to be outdone the immediate successor of Akufo Addo, John Mahama, has also embarked on his own journey of appointments.

Much of this Fourth Republic, high‑salience cases — election petitions, removal proceedings, constitutional interpretations — have tended to split along lines that mirror partisan divides, reinforcing public suspicion. Reports by CDD‑Ghana, ACEPA, and the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative point to chronic delays, opaque criteria for judicial elevation, and episodic court‑expansion during politically sensitive moments. In comparative perspective, Ghana’s trajectory contrasts sharply with reform‑driven judiciaries in Rwanda, where digitalisation, case‑tracking, and transparent appointment processes have improved trust, and with South Africa and India, where constitutional courts maintain stronger reputational buffers. The cumulative effect is a public belief, grounded in numbers rather than rhetoric, that Ghana’s judiciary has become structurally vulnerable to partisan influence — a slow drift, not a sudden collapse, but one that now shapes the political imagination of the Fourth Republic.

Some radical measures are needed:

I would for example love to see all living retired supreme court judges who are certified as medically fit playing an institutional role should there be an effort by the executive to remove judges of the supreme court. The current constitutional process is, de facto, too skewed to equipping any determined president with enough power to remove even the Chief Justice. What, in real political terms, is the institutional obstacle to a president dominating the judiciary today? To make it constitutionally mandatory for the deciding body to be made of retired supreme court judges may take out some of the partisan casino manipulation that current arrangements allow. On another occasion this can be further discussed.

We need to set-up an independent appointments authority for judges of the superior courts, that is, de facto and de jure, much, much more insulated from the executive influence of what is, in reality in our current constitution, an imperial presidency. How many judges desperately looking for elevation to the next layer, whatever that is, knowing full well that the president has tremendous sway in whether that will happen or not, are likely to deliver an inconvenient judgment to the governing party? We need an independent appointments body. And I mean independent – the President must be out of it. Completely. No nomination, no appointment, no consultation that becomes de facto control.

These are real systemic knots that we need to institutionally untie. Things have deteriorated so much so that the politicians no longer even retain subtlety, they have given up all pretences. Before our very eyes, frighteningly, scaringly, worryingly, you hear them say when in opposition that once they get into power again there will be changes – scorched earth. “We will put our own people in charge when we come to power,” that is the new war-cry of partisans. Is there a Ghana at all these days or is there only an NDC Ghana and an NPP-Ghana?

It is now dangerous to be a truly independent and non-partisan professional in some sectors of our national life. The politicians will anyway tag you as being either for them or against them, one way or the other. Woe betides the true professional that must take multiple adverse decisions against the powerful and ruthless; you will come to understand the saying: ɛnyɛ Kopol ni tsipɛn nye Sajen Major! The partisan ruthlessness in these matters can be shocking, claiming innocent victims in its wake. We now change even public toilet handlers in this country when governments change. How did we get to be so polarised?

Judges bear the brunt of all this while citizens look on helplessly. How can any institution, any democracy, any society, call it what you want, ever grow in such a helplessly polarised climate?

We may take some encouragement from Kenya, where Dr. Willy Mutunga, the hardened revolutionary scholar, an ex-political detainee, complete with a stud in his ear, made it to Chief Justice, despite the political class not really backing him. Could this have happened in Ghana of today? How could it?

The Kenyan constitution required the nominee judges to be interviewed by an independent panel, on TV. The constitution of the panel was not left to the discretion of partisan actors. The scoring criteria were transparent before the public. At the end of that gruelling process Mutunga had the job – simple matter. Is it then any wonder that the Kenyan judicial process is better rated than ours? What can we learn from them in that regard, even if on some other judicial indicators we do better, given things have thickened there since the current constitution was adopted?

4. From Cylinder To Funnel: I have now run out of time; I suspect any way that those who invited me are eager that I say no more at this stage. I had wanted to sneak in comments about how our media focus must change from partisan gladiatorial clashes to one that recognises that development of society is what matters most. But there will not be enough time for this.

There is hardly time for me to make the point that the thoroughfare which our judicial system seems to be growing into, one which is so permissive and porous that everyone who can afford it tries to appeal or seek reviews till the case gets to the Supreme Court, is wasteful. These days some people are even looking for appellate avenues beyond the Supreme Court.

In his earlier referred to book, Kofi Date-Bah made some very insightful suggestions about how to get the High Court to become the anchor superior court for dispute resolution, so higher courts can focus more on how to enable the law to grow in strategic ways, by dealing with serious constitutional issues and real grounds for appeal.

Since everyone here can read, let me simply say all those interested in improving our governance should get themselves copies of that book. I will thank you tremendously if you get a copy, I will pray for you to go to heaven if you study it. For we cannot outsource our thinking and reflection to partisan minded legal appendages of the major parties giving skewed episodic commentaries on TV.

Knowledge is the primary productive force. We must get much more serious and determined about where we place this realisation in our endeavours.

Final remarks:

I have spoken for less than an hour, it is not my intention to give a comprehensive summary in concluding, especially given a panel discussion follows. In this provocation I have sought to point out that our Santa Claus democracy is living dangerously, because for many its tangible outcomes of dignity, development, justice, and freedom, hardly exist. Society has no enduring way to keep the person with none of these in a compact that maintains harmony. So, we must come together to develop our society, much more seriously and much more united as a determined people.

Whatever choices we make in that effort the place of a strong independent judicial process will be of critical importance. We are here to share thoughts on how this can be achieved. Writing in striking urgency in the appropriately titled work, The Fire Next Time12, James Baldwin spared no efforts in calling for action to reverse injustice. Hear him in his own often repeated words: “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

Tomorrow, we bury Professor John Meyer Hyde, my mentor. He was the first president of UTAG, a man who maintained a life-long commitment to arduously working for freedom for the great many, in the truest sense of that word. I do not know whether he will agree with what we choose to do, but I would like to tell him when we meet again, as we will someday across the river, that even when he was gone, his work, mostly done away from public attention, inspired many to continue the search for that same freedom.

I came close to excoriating you people that refer to yourselves as “learned friends” for being too serious and rigid. I have many, many, friends among you who are not anything like that popular caricature suggests. And they will love that I do not end in a way that is classically expected from lawyers speaking in a court register.

So, I will turn to two global icons from the creative arts who both emerged from Global Africa for my final words – Wole Soyinka and Bob Marley.

First to Soyinka writing in his epic drama, Death and The King’s Horseman13:

It is the death of war that kills the valiant, Death of water is how the swimmer goes. It is the death of markets that kills the trader. And death of indecision takes the idle away. The trade of the cutlass blunts its edge. And the beautiful die the death of beauty. It takes an Elesin to die the death of death… Only Elesin… dies the unknowable death of death…Gracefully, gracefully does the horseman regain the stables at the end of the day, gracefully…”

May all of you that stand on the right side of the fence, those who work daily for a better society, fight with the courage of an Elesin, for justice. Shall we then say together to those who in their acts of omission or commission, set the clock of progress back, in Marley’s lyrics: