By Kingsley Mamore
Dambai (O/R) Sept 04, GNA – Residents in the Oti Region have expressed divergent views on comments purported to have been made by the Chief Justice, Mr Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, regarding the performance of the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF) and other state-owned enterprises (SOEs).
The Chief Justice, during a visit to the MIIF on Wednesday, commended the Fund and some other public institutions for what he described as improvements in their operations and performance.
He reportedly questioned what Ghana had been doing over the previous eight years, based on some of the developments he had witnessed and information received about the performance of state institutions.
The comments have since generated mixed reactions, with some residents agreeing that the performance of public institutions should be assessed on the basis of measurable economic indicators and institutional records, while others expressed concern about the political implications of comparing the current administration’s performance with that of a previous government.
Mr Mustapha Abdul Ganiyu, a resident of Dambai-Israel, told the Ghana News Agency (GNA) that the Chief Justice’s observations were justified, arguing that available economic indicators supported his comments.
Asked whether he agreed with the assertion that some SOEs, including MIIF, were performing better than they did over the previous eight years, Mr Ganiyu answered in the affirmative.
He said the available figures and records provided sufficient evidence to assess the performance of public institutions and determine whether they were making progress.
Mr Ganiyu also disagreed with suggestions that the Chief Justice should refrain from commenting on political and economic matters, arguing that, as part of the governance structure of the country, he had a legitimate interest in national development.
However, Mr Francis Boyesah Gesaloge, a resident of Kadjebi in the Akan District, took a more nuanced position.
He said the Chief Justice had every right to make observations that could contribute to the success of government and to commend public institutions for good performance.
Mr Gesaloge said he agreed with the Chief Justice’s decision to encourage and recognise the efforts of SOEs but disagreed with the comparison of their performance with that of the previous government.
According to him, such comparisons could give the remarks a political character, which was undesirable for the head of the Judiciary.
Mr Yakubu Obuaba, a political analyst, also said there was nothing wrong with the Chief Justice commending SOEs for good performance or expressing concern when institutions performed poorly.
He, however, said bringing the performance of a previous administration into the discussion could create the perception of partisanship.
Mr Obuaba said available reports indicated that some public institutions had recorded gains in recent years, citing the growth in Assets Under Management (AUM) from about GHS1.7 billion to GHS3.2 billion between 2021 and 2022 as an example.
He said the Chief Justice, like any other citizen, was not prohibited from expressing views on national issues, but added that the constitutional office he occupied was unique and required heightened sensitivity to public perception.
“The office is special, and perception is important. If people begin to perceive the Chief Justice as partisan, it is not the best for the Judiciary,” he said.
Mr Mark Takasi, a resident of the Krachi Nchumuru District, was more critical of the Chief Justice’s remarks, describing them as inappropriate for the holder of the highest judicial office.
He said the comments did not sound like those expected from a Chief Justice but rather resembled a partisan political communication.
Mr Takasi argued that the Chief Justice was expected to remain impartial, measured and above partisan politics, adding that the remarks, in his view, could be interpreted as a politically motivated criticism of opposition political parties.
He said maintaining public confidence in the Judiciary required the Chief Justice and other senior judicial officers to be particularly cautious about comments that could be perceived as partisan.
The divergent views expressed by the residents highlight the broader debate over the appropriate role of constitutional office holders in commenting on national economic and political developments.
While some residents believe that the performance of public institutions should be openly acknowledged and scrutinised based on evidence, others contend that holders of constitutionally independent offices must exercise restraint to avoid undermining public confidence in their neutrality.
The residents nevertheless agreed on the need for greater accountability, transparency and improved performance by state institutions to ensure that public resources were managed effectively in the national interest.
GNA
Edited by Maxwell Awumah/Benjamin Mensah