The Majority in Parliament has rallied behind Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Torkornoo’s proposal to increase the number of Supreme Court judges from 12 to 20, amid criticism from the National Democratic Congress (NDC) that the move is unlawful.

Chief Justice Torkornoo has submitted a list of five judges to President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo for nomination to the Supreme Court, citing a heavy caseload as a key reason for the expansion.

The proposal has ignited a debate over its constitutionality, with the NDC challenging the Chief Justice’s authority to propose such a change.

Speaking to the Parliamentary press corps on Monday, 8 July 2024, the Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin staunchly defended the Chief Justice’s initiative, affirming that it is well within her legal rights and constitutional duties.

“We’ve become aware that the Chief Justice has mooted a proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 20 judges for efficiency and effectiveness.

“Some people are saying that the Chief Justice does not have such a mandate to do so. We disagree and would say that per Article 125(4) of the Constitution, there are some inherent powers provided for in this provision that allow the Chief Justice, as a chief executive and head of the judiciary, to make such proposals. Quote, ‘the Chief Justice shall, subject to this Constitution, be head of the judiciary, and shall be responsible for the administration and supervision of the judiciary,’” Mr. Afenyo-Markin noted.

He highlighted that the Chief Justice’s role encompasses making proposals to enhance the judiciary’s functionality.

Mr. Afenyo-Markin said: “When somebody is in charge of the management of a body, they are able to determine how to run the place efficiently, what would make the work of that institution be properly done, and to make proposals within the context of the law.”

He further clarified that the Constitution sets only a minimum number of Supreme Court judges, without an upper limit.

“The framers of our Constitution in their wisdom gave us a minimum ceiling. What did they anticipate? The anticipation was that there could be a possibility in the future to increase the number. That is why they did not provide for an upper ceiling. So if you read this and juxtapose it against Article 125(4) that I earlier referred to, clearly you cannot argue that any increase in the number of judges at the Supreme Court above 10 is unconstitutional or that the Chief Justice is wrong in making such a suggestion or proposal,” the Majority leader added.