Ghana’s President, J.A. Kufuor has called upon to take a second look at the nomination of Mr. Justice Edward Wiredu as the country’s next Chief Justice.

In a petition to the President, Kenneth Kuranchie, a journalist and the editor of the Searchlight noted that the office of the chief justice is an honourable one due to the fact that it is the apex and fountain of jurisprudence in any country for which reason whoever occupies that office, must be a man of proven integrity, deep knowledge and above reproach.

However, according to the petitioner, these attributes cannot be attributed to the president’s nominee. The petition also reminded the president of page 28 of the incident in which the late former Chief Justice, I.K. Abban is alleged to have doctored a ruling of the supreme court by inserting a 1972 Daily Graphic editorial as the opinion of Dr. K.A. Busia.

An incident which sent a “Free Press”, (a private newspaper) columnist, Mr. Mensah Bonsu to jail although truth was on his side.

It was during the trial of that case that Mrs. Joyce Bamford Addo; a Supreme Court judge remarked, “Truth is no defence in court.” Mr. Mensah Bonsu was recently appointed as Ghana’s Ambassador to Togo.

The petition reminded the president that the Justice I.K. Abban was an excellent jurist and of bravado, given his exploits as an Electoral Commissioner during the UNIGOV era but the “Page 28 Affair” served in no small measure to some how dent his image as Chief Justice.

The petition published by the Daily Guide, an Accra-based private daily said Mr. Kuranchie denied that his stand against the Acting Chief Justice has anything to do with his recent pronouncements against the repeal of the dreaded Criminal Libel. Kuranchie whose petition to the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) against former president Rawlings, noted that he opposes the nomination of the Justice Wiredu on the following grounds:

1.That the acting chief justice allegedly made a prejudicial statement which made it possible for his subordinate, Yaw Appau, a Justice of the High Court, to subsequently decline jurisdiction in a case filed against him (the Acting Chief Justice) by one Philip Apaloo challenging the eligibility of Justice Wiredu as judge of the superior court of judicature.

2. A few days before the court ruling, Justice Wiredu was said to have granted an interview to the Daily Graphic on July 26, 2001 to advance his defence against the Apaloo suit.

Earlier efforts made by the plaintiff to file his case at the court registry did not materialise because they were upon alleged instructions, not to entertain the writ.

It took a campaign in a media for Mr. Apaloo’s writ to be accepted, Kuranchie therefore wondered where “the instructions from above” came from adding “if it is established to have come from the Acting Chief Justice, then that is enough proof that there would certainly be some semblance of meddlesomeness in the affairs of the judiciary if the Acting Chief Justice should he be given the nod by Parliament.

“My problem is that Mr. Justice Wiredu should not have even commented on the case when he knew the case was before a court of competent jurisdiction,” the petitioner said.

“What is even more intriguing is that in dismissing Mr. Philip Apaloo’s suit against the acting chief justice the trial judge, Justice Yaw Appau advanced arguments that sounded quite similar to that of the Acting CJ, claimed Mr. Kuranchie.

The petition also questioned Justice Wiredu’s decision to engage a former financial controller of the judicial service whom the auditor-general’s report on the judiciary covering the period December 31, 1997, had made serious financial impropriety against.

The Public Accounts Committee of Parliament has also called for sanctions against the conduct of Mr. George Fordjour, but the Acting Chief Justice has not done this, wondered Kuranchie.

The petition also picked on a report that quoted the Acting CJ as having ordered the re-arrest of some suspected armed robbers after a Tema Circuit Tribunal had granted them bail in accordance with the orders of an Accra High Court.

Mr. Kuranchie claimed that even though armed robbers are a menace to society for which reason they must be kept behind bars all the time, once a competent court of law had decided that they should be granted bail in accordance with the Constitution, there was no need for the Acting CJ to order their re-arrest since that amounts to interference in the work of the judiciary.

This according to the petition would certainly make some judges look over their shoulders when giving verdicts.

Finally, Kuranchie reminded the president that on Monday October 1, 2001, the Acting CJ openly criticised the repeal of the criminal libel law with the excuse that it would open the floodgates for journalists to write any how and jump from one radio station to another making libellous statements.

The petition said the repeal of the criminal libel law is one of the shinning jewels in the first few months of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) government and sees no reason why someone who opposes the repeal, which was central to the NPP, even in opposition, should seek to be appointed a Chief Justice.

Meanwhile, the Judicial Secretary has stated that all the allegations levelled against the Acting CJ are false.

According to the Daily Graphic, throughout the 33-year experience of the Acting CJ, no adverse findings had been established against his conduct or office as a judge of the appeal and/or as a member of the Supreme Court.

The Acting Chief Justice has reiterated his stand on the repeal of the Criminal Libel law. To him, the repeal of the law has left a lacuna, which could make journalists write anyhow to destroy he hard-won reputation of others. According to him, even now, some journalists are libelling and slandering the character of several innocent people whose reputation cannot be so repaired by mere publication of rejoinders.

In the absence of the Criminal Libel law, the Chief Justice (acting) suggested that the National Media Commission should be strengthened to be able to sanction erring journalists.