Lawyer and New Patriotic Party (NPP) communicator Kwasi Kwarteng has questioned the appropriateness of recent comments by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie on the performance of state-owned enterprises.
Kwarteng argued that the controversy should not be reduced to whether the Chief Justice had violated any law, but rather whether his remarks were consistent with the standards expected of someone occupying one of the country’s highest public offices.
“There are certain things you don’t do given your position to protect the sanctity of your office,” he said.
According to him, senior public officials are required to exercise a level of restraint because their conduct and public comments can influence how the institutions they lead are perceived.
Kwarteng said the expectations associated with high public office go beyond what is expressly prohibited by law, insisting that office holders must also consider the prestige and credibility attached to their positions.
He cited the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, as an example of how the conduct of individuals in prestigious positions is often guided by conventions and expectations designed to preserve the dignity of the office.
“When have we ever seen Otumfuo drinking even water in public?” he asked.
Kwarteng also took issue with the basis of the Chief Justice’s assessment of the performance of state institutions over the past eight years.
The Chief Justice had questioned Ghana’s previous performance after hearing claims about improvements in some state-owned organisations under the current administration.
“Sometimes when we hear how well some state organisations are doing now, we wonder what we really have been doing in the past eight years,” the Chief Justice was quoted as saying.
However, Kwarteng maintained that the statement appeared to have been based on information the Chief Justice had heard rather than evidence independently established by him.
“Even the truth he referenced, it was on hearsay, so even on the prima facie, there is no truth. It was based on speculation. He couldn’t present any fact to support it,” he argued.
He said the concern was particularly significant because the judiciary depends heavily on public confidence and the perception of impartiality to command respect.
Unlike institutions that exercise authority through physical force, Kwarteng said the Judiciary derives much of its influence from the prestige, legitimacy and sanctity attached to judicial office.
“The Judiciary has no arms or ammunition, or do they have soldiers working there? But they thrive on orality and sanctity, and there is prestige and status that comes with the office and that is why they are respected,” he said.
Kwarteng therefore urged people who occupy high public positions to be conscious of the wider implications of their public statements, arguing that protecting the credibility of an office should be considered as important as complying with the law.
He maintained that his criticism was centred on the standards expected of the office of Chief Justice and not merely on the political substance of the comments concerning state-owned enterprises.
