Supreme Court Appointments Demand Experience Beyond Minimum Requirement — Justice Adjei-Frimpong
Justice Adjei-Frimpong explains that experience, integrity, and rigorous vetting shape Ghana’s Supreme Court appointments
- Justice Adjei-Frimpong says Supreme Court nominees typically exceed the constitutional minimum of 15 years’ legal practice.
- Appointment process includes background checks, Judicial Council review, presidential consultation, and parliamentary vetting.
- Moral integrity remains a key requirement, assessed through multiple layers of scrutiny.
A Justice of the Supreme Court, Richard Adjei-Frimpong, has clarified that although Ghana’s Constitution sets a minimum of 15 years of legal practice for appointment to the country’s highest court, candidates are generally expected to exceed this benchmark in practice.
Speaking on The Law on JoyNews on Sunday, April 12, during discussions marking the Supreme Court at 150, he explained that experience is only one aspect of a more comprehensive and rigorous selection process.
According to him, while the Constitution outlines key requirements—including at least 15 years at the Bar and high moral integrity—nominees typically possess significantly more experience.
“By convention, we don’t consider people at exactly 15 years. It usually goes beyond that—20 years and more,” he noted.
Justice Adjei-Frimpong emphasized that moral integrity, though harder to measure, remains a crucial requirement. He explained that the appointment system is structured to evaluate both professional competence and personal character through multiple stages of scrutiny.
The process begins with background checks and an assessment by the Judicial Council of Ghana, where candidates undergo an evaluative session often referred to as an “interaction.”
“Background checks are conducted, and the nominee appears before the Judicial Council for questioning,” he explained.
Following this, recommendations are submitted to the President, who is constitutionally required to consult the Council of State before forwarding the nominee’s name to the Parliament of Ghana.
At the parliamentary level, nominees face further scrutiny through a public vetting process. Their names are published, allowing citizens to submit petitions or comments ahead of the hearings.
Justice Adjei-Frimpong noted that successfully passing through these multiple layers serves as a strong indication that a nominee meets the required ethical and professional standards.
“If one is able to go through all the processes, then the person would have satisfied the moral integrity requirement, at least prima facie,” he stated.
He concluded that while the constitutional requirement of 15 years provides a baseline, it is the combination of extensive experience, demonstrated integrity, and rigorous institutional vetting that ultimately determines eligibility for appointment to Ghana’s Supreme Court.
“If you meet all these, then you qualify to serve on the highest court of the land,” he added.
