The University of Ghana Law Professor Raymond Atuguba has serious allegations tie to his recent investigation and only provided empirical data to confirm popular perception that political appointments of judges have influenced their voting patterns on political cases.

Atuguba said in his analyses that voting pattern of judges of the apex court on 100 political cases from 1993 to 2018 and revealed a "staggering pattern."

According to the findings which is yet to be published, on matters where the law is not clear, the Supreme Court judges are divided along the ideological lines of the political parties that appointed them.

Prof. Atuguba in lecture said he sampled 100 political cases and compared it with the position of the judges appointed by the ruling party at the time. It revealed that 14 out of 22 National Democratic Congress (NDC) appointees to the Supreme Court have given judgment in favour of the NDC. On the other hand, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) had 13 of its 16 judges giving judgments in favour of the party. But he however failed to tell us the specific cases involved. It is critical to find out how a case was determined as political and how the researcher reached the conclusion that a judge favoured the appointing authority.

There is a say that "No man is so foolish but he may sometimes give another good counsel, and no man so wise that he may not easily err if he takes no other counsel than his own. He that is taught only by himself has a fool for a master". This case Hon. Professor Raymond Atuguba has put the facts out without providing us the missing link which will serve as guiding principles to interrogate the issue properly. He has failed to make reference to the specific cases involved in the investigations so that we can go deeply to approved or disapproved the outcome of the investigations.

Professor Raymond Atuguba did not specifically tell us under which government or whose watch or presidency his house was militarily besieged, in a curious but unsurprising bid to curtailing his academic freedom, and to clearly intimidate him, ought to tell the critically-thinking reader that the plaintiff may not, after all, be as honest and upfront as he would have his audiences believe. He is inviting us to interrogate empty or blank allegations without basis.

The law lecture also made allegation about one IGP who order for his arrest, he said the last time he analysed the work of the police with the intention of drawing their attention to some of their flaws, his house was besieged. Eight fully armed police officers were dispatched by the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to go and arrest him from his office, he however did not disclosed how he escape from the arrest. The law lecture has again failed mentioned the name of the IGP who ordered for his arrest.

In conclusion, the Professor of law should be forced to published the cases he alleged were politically manipulated and again release the police report that nearly cost his arrest. Ghanaians deserved the right to know and read what has been put out there by the law professor, it will be of beneficiary to him and Ghanaians as a whole. Thank you.