The Presidency, on February 18, 2026, announced the dismissal of petitions seeking the removal of the Special Prosecutor.
Chair and two deputies of the Electoral Commission (EC).
The outcome, dismissal, provides us an opportunity to reflect on our constitutional and statutory independent bodies and the mechanisms for protecting their independence while holding them accountable.
For context, Ghana’s Constitution creates a handful of institutions designated as independent constitutional bodies.
These institutions have duties and responsibilities within well-defined scopes.
These bodies are the EC, National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE), Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), National Media Commission (NMC), Audit Service, Public Services Commission, and Administrator of District Assembly Common Fund.
The idea behind the creation of these bodies and the guarantee of tenure of office is to help insulate them against political party turnover.
These bodies have generally discharged their duties well, whether related to elections, regularly conducting and publishing audits of various government accounts, educating the public, conducting investigations of corruption, or ensuring the conduct of free and fair elections.
In the discharge of these duties though, citizens have had moments to raise questions about these institutions.
Difficult days for independent constitutional and other bodies
Over the years though, our independent constitutional bodies have been caught up in the cross hairs of political partisans.
Take the EC for example. Growing suspicions of the commission, strong partisan rhetoric directed at it, a process that removed three commissioners (chair and two deputies) in 2018, and a post-2020 election breakdown of the relationship between the commission and one of Ghana’s main political parties (NDC), heightened tensions in the lead-up to the 2024 election.
It was not to see calls for the removal of the EC Chair with certain partisan voices demanding her resignation. It was therefore unsurprising to see formal petitions presented to the president for the removal of the EC Chair and two deputies.
The constitutional process that triggered and removed the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Article 146:6) generated heated discussions about judicial independence and executive interference.
While the process followed the letter of the law as prescribed by the Constitution, it became very polarising and deeply partisan for some with the danger of precedents set becoming precedents that must be followed at the next turnover election.
Although a new Chief Justice has been sworn into office and the partisan acrimony appears to have subsided, the entire process, in my opinion, left some lingering doubts in the minds of some about his legitimacy.
The Office of Special Prosecutor (OSP) recently came under scrutiny with prominent voices like the Speaker of Parliament calling for abolishing the office.
It took the intervention of the President for a private members’ bill introduced by the Majority Leader and Chief Whip which called for the repeal of the OSP Act to be withdrawn.
In addition, after seven years, public sentiment appears to be mixed about how well the office has served the country in the fight against corruption in government given the substantial investments made.
The consequences of the dismissal
The most consequential outcome of the dismissal is the democratic safeguard role these institutions play.
While we have made positive strides in our democratic journey, there are some points of vulnerability that in my opinion made it a very risky proposition to have multiple removals in quick succession.
More importantly, the long-term effect may have rendered these independent constitutional and statutory bodies ineffective in playing their safeguard role.
At a time when Ghanaians have consistently questioned the independence of the judiciary, including expressing low trust in it (Afrobarometer survey) this decision hopefully is one of many that will go a long way to restore citizens’ confidence in the judiciary.
I agree, this is but a single decision and it will take other reform efforts to fully restore confidence in the judiciary.
Nonetheless these and other steps cumulatively can potentially get us there.
The decision provides the system with a temporary reprieve from the polarisation that has come to characterise accountability efforts lately.
It does not mean that concerns of polarisation are a reason to stop the demand and pursuit of accountability, but I wonder whether the system could have handled another Article 146 process without an unintentional weakening of these institutions.
The institutional actors must also take a cue from their actions or inactions that led to the petitions in the first place.
While the dismissal of these petitions exonerates them, it is an opportunity to identify areas of growth and improvement.
As I have often argued, independent does not mean unaccountable.
The task we face as a country is how to balance independence with the demands for accountability in a way that does not undermine our independent constitutional and statutory bodies.
The writer is the Project Director, Democracy Project
Source:
www.graphic.com.gh