On Wednesday evening, while I was going through my WhatsApp and contemplating whether to watch that Barca-Inter Champions League Semi-final match or use the time more profitably as part of my “last minutes” efforts to salvage my Conveyancing and Drafting, I saw a piece of news that excited me. A “green letter” signed by the President’s Secretary had a list of Judges nominated by the President for consideration and approval for the Supreme Court. I checked with government sources, and the veracity of the content was confirmed; our own Justice Kweku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo had been nominated for the Supreme Court. What good news!!! My initial decision was to send him a congratulatory message like many of his students and members of the legal fraternity will do, but on second thought, I decided to be a bit more elaborate and write out a worthy tribute to My Lord on this occasion of his well-deserved nomination to the Supreme Court.
My Lord Justice Ackaah-Boafo is a man I have come to admire for many reasons. Apart from being knowledgeable about the law, he also seems to be nuanced. He has exposure, learning and practising in the Canadian jurisdiction, and he leverages this exposure in encouraging the growth of the practice in Ghana. His ideas and thoughts smack of a modern-day jurist. Even though deeply steeped in the conservative ideals of how the law should be practised, he is still very open-minded and acknowledges that the exigencies of the time are a relevant context for looking at the many principles, practices and procedures that are the trappings of the law. By his words, his warmth and his gestures, it is clear that he’s such a gentleman.
For this piece, I shall summarise my reflection on him into 3 thematic areas.
A sucker for integrity, ethical values and respect
Since October 2024, when Justice Ackaah-Boafo first walked into our class as our lecturer for the Law of Advocacy and Legal Ethics, he has been nothing short of an amazing lecturer guiding the subject of legal ethics especially as codified into the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 2020 (L.I 2423). Borrowing from his experience practising at the Ontario Bar in Canada and as a Judge in Ghana before whom many Ghanaian Lawyers have appeared, Justice Ackaah-Boafo teaches legal ethics with Kantian philosophy. Our class routine is for us to read the provisions and on each rule, he provides insight, illustrations and case law to help us appreciate the rule. Anyone who knows these rules knows that some of them require the highest form of moral discipline to be able to abide by them. And these rules have provoked debates in class about their practical application. I remember the debates that went on for days, and still keep coming back, about Rule 35(1)(b) and Rule 63(2)(h) which requires a lawyer in the conduct of a case to cite any existing authorities that he knows on an issue before the court even if that authority is adverse to his case. At an academic level, many of us questioned how lawyers as human beings who have a duty to their client and will be naturally inclined to do what is necessary to win their cases, are expected to bring to the court’s attention authorities that may defeat their own case. But on these controversial areas of ethics, Justice Ackaah Boafo urges us to place the duty to the court and to the public as officers of the administration of justice above our disposition to “do everything to win cases”. What stands out for all of us is his dogmatic insistence that a Lawyer’s greatest virtue is the nobility of integrity and candour. And that there’s inherent value in doing the right thing as a Lawyer. On every rule where we are constrained to question the wrong a lawyer will be committing if he does not comply strictly because there appears to be no wrong on the face of it, My Lord will repeat, “in many of these rules it is not the actuality of a wrong but the optics. If it doesn’t look good and sound good for you to do it as a lawyer then don’t do it”
My Lord Ackaah-Boafo not only insist on integrity, nobility and respect to trainee Lawyers, but he actually requires these standards from Lawyers in practice who may appear before him. His ethical antenna is always high, and he does not hesitate in his judgments to comment on the need to maintain professional standards when needed. One of such comments was his observation in the recently decided case of Fred Kusim Awindaogo v Martin Luther Kpebu & Anor (Suit No: GJ429/2020), where he remarked at paragraph 113;
“In my view, even though the 1st defendant might assume that he is “smart” and “popular” as he put it, he ought to give some modicum of respect to a colleague lawyer. Through his questions and answers, he was condescending towards the Plaintiff by his choice of words and how he described the Plaintiff in the course of the proceedings. In the opinion of the Court, the 1st defendant’s approach was not only unacceptable but disrespectful and arrogant. I wish to put it on record that this Court did not appreciate same at all”
This was a case between two lawyers where, from the account in the judgment, one of the parties had insisted that his colleague lacked the intellectual ability to write a book, the authorship of which was the subject matter of the dispute. That case coincidentally happens to be one of the very maiden modern decisions on the Copyright Act of Ghana, where My Lord demonstrated his judicial depth at confronting a matter in an area where there seems to be a dearth of modern authorities in Ghana. I shall return to this case subsequently.
Even away from legal and judicial requirements of integrity, nobility and candour, there’s something personal about My Lord’s disposition that makes one know that he is naturally a pleasant “guy”. The way he encourages and tolerates discourse, how he addresses everyone and his choice of words, even when he hands down a reprimand, tell of how pleasant he is. Perhaps his formative training from his beloved Otwebompitil, which I believe is the name of a village he only uses as a metaphor for his humble beginnings, is what has shaped him into the gentleman that he is.
An erudite Judge, dedicated to justice and the development of the law.
Justice Ackaah-Boafo no doubt has a passion for justice and the development of sound legal principles. It is what has guided him in his years at the Bench. The little I have gleaned from his judgments tells me that he is a fastidious Judge who painstakingly goes through the evidence and ensures that the applicable law either bears the evidence out or disproves it before giving judgments. He does not shy away from offering obiters, the purpose of which is to draw attention to a growing social problem for the redress that it needs. A few instances.
Claims for medical malpractice have been few in Ghana. Perhaps as a conservative society which “leaves everything in the hands of God” or believes in the Akan saying that life will not thrive where death has purposed to prevail- to wit “owu kura ade aa nkwa ntumi ngye”, many people in the past have accepted that death at hospitals occurs on the account of the inevitable fate of death. Whatever it is, the truth is that not all deaths at the hospital occur by the due exercise of professional care. This state of affairs, My Lord had occasion to deprecate when he authored what became a popular case in the development of our medico-legal jurisprudence case of Dr. E.L.A Chinbuah & Nyamekye vs Attorney General (37 Military Hospital case) (Suit No; GJ/378/2016). At paragraph 151, he remarked;
“I wish to respectfully ask doctors and specialists at our hospitals to kindly take a second look at what is gradually becoming a canker in our society, where many innocent would-be mothers lose their lives needlessly. While the healthcare sector in recent times has emphasised a slow decline in maternal deaths, the problem still exists. I recognise that as doctors, they face challenges each day in their work and deserve our commendation rather than condemnation. However, the events that led to the untimely death of the deceased in this case were just unacceptable and should not be repeated at all. If same is not correct, there would be many Captain Nyamekyes and little Yaw Nyamekye who would be robbed of brilliant wives and mothers. I hope that would not be the case”
It has become commonplace for the Police to arrest and prosecute an individual solely because a suspect has named that individual as his/her accomplice and not because the Police have their independent basis for arresting and prosecuting such an individual. In a recent criminal appeal, Isakar Abubakar v The Republic, decided just about 3 weeks ago, My Lord had cause to repudiate this practice, pointing out its inherent dangers for our criminal justice system;
“My Lords, another aspect of this appeal on which I wish to express my opinion concerns the reason for the Appellant’s arrest in the first place. In my view, this case, like a few others I have had the opportunity to review, presents and reveals a troubling trend in the manner in which investigations are conducted by the police and prosecutions are carried out in our courts. In this case, I question why the Appellant was arrested, as the Record of Appeal reveals that, apart from the statements of persons arrested alongside the Appellant, who indicated that he was part of the robbery, no independent evidence linking the Appellant to the robbery was obtained by the police….
My Lords, in my respectful opinion, the time has come to be blunt with investigators: arresting an individual solely based on another person’s statement, without a thorough independent investigation, poses significant risks.
Apart from the obvious ethical lapses inherent in a laissez-faire attitude towards investigating accusations, the accuser may have personal motives such as revenge, bias, misidentification, or even deliberate deception and deflection of attention from actual perpetrators, leading to wrongful arrests. Moreover, such practices encourage arbitrary policing, fostering abuse of power and the erosion of public trust in law enforcement. They also create opportunities for individuals to manipulate the system for personal gain, using arrests to settle scores, eliminate rivals, or shield actual perpetrators. It is imperative that investigators recognise the necessity of conducting proper investigations, supported by corroborating evidence such as forensic proof, surveillance footage, and credible eyewitness testimony to mitigate these risks and uphold justice.”
Going back to the case of Fred Awindaogo v Martin Kpebu supra, as already noted, this case concerns a relatively undeveloped area- decisions on Ghana’s Copyright Act. But when My Lord was confronted with the previous authorities, he was able to distil and distinguish the principles and applied sound law to do justice to the parties. On the persuasion by the 1st defendants that his case was in line with the principles in the existing authorities, My Lord had this to say at paragraph 100 of the judgement;
“Finally, on this issue I wish to state that I have read the two Ghanaian cases the 1st Defendant relied on in his written submission, being CFAO v Archibold Supra decided by the Supreme Court and Ellis v Donkor Supra decided by Brobbey J (as he then was), and I am of the respectful opinion that it’s a case of one comparing apples with oranges. Both cases dealt with musical composition and were also decided under different laws. The courts, with respect, did not lay out any general rule that in all cases, comparison must be made to determine contribution as the basis for authorship/copyright, as erroneously stated by the 1st Defendant. For instance, in the CFAO v Archibold case, the court was clear to state that “with respect to a musical work, copyright implies the subsistence of a manuscript of written matter which sets out the distinctive combination of melody and harmony or either of them”. In terms of congruence of logic, therefore, the two scenarios are not the same. Comparing musical notes is not the same as writing a book, whereas in this case, “re-writing” and “correcting work” done by another in a book, as established by the facts, is the case.”
Of course, Justice Ackaah-Boafo does not stand as a sapient of all law, unblemished and undefeated in his legal reasoning. No. This piece does not claim so, and he won’t claim so either. Therefore, as a High Court Judge when he presided over what became known as Ex Parte Zanetor and determined that article 94(1)(a) of the Constitution is clear and does not call for interpretation, the Supreme Court reversed him and assumed jurisdiction to interpret the said provision. I needed to bring this balance to make the point that I admire Justice Ackaah-Boafo not because he’s always right at law, but because I see him to be a conscientious, diligent Judge. After all, even the most widely respected Judicial mind of all time, Lord Denning, was severely reversed as a lower court judge.
A fine jurist and writer
Apart from being a good judge with the content of the law, Justice Ackaah-Boafo also puts his thoughts across in his judgments with beautiful language. I have heard Lawyers speak admirably about how he writes, and I have also read a few of his decisions and formed the same opinion. As a lover of the judicial writings of old, I find My Lord’s characteristic way of beginning judgments with anecdotes and quotations very refreshing.
In Georgina Opoku Agyemang v Jacob Kwame Asiamah & Anor, My Lord began this way:
“I will prefix this judgment with the quote attributed to an unknown author, which states that “Friendship is delicate as a glass, once broken it can be fixed, but there will always be cracks”
When My Lord authored the lead judgment in the recent Court of Appeal case of Republic v Ato Forson & 2 Others, where the accused appealed against the dismissal of their submission of no case at the High Court, he again began with a quote:
“My Lords, based on the facts presented in this appeal and the question for our determination, I wish to start my opinion with the statement by M. Hor in the article “The Privilege against Self-Incrimination and Fairness to the Accused”‘ to the effect that: “Perhaps the single most important organising principle in criminal law is the right of an accused not to be forced into assisting in his or her own prosecution.”
In the 37 Military case already cited, My Lord at paragraph 1 in the introduction noted:
“Most of these deaths are preventable, yet this tragedy remains so common in low- and middle-income countries. How do loved ones and health care professionals account for what might have been a preventable death during childbirth at a major health care facility? Anecdotal evidence of such preventable deaths abounds, but it is not often that laypersons and stakeholders obtain insight into such tragedies as in this case, where the doctors who treated the deceased admit that her death was preventable. This is the factual dynamic around which this case revolves.”
In the Fred Awindaogo case, My Lord introduced the judgment in the following words;
“The desire of the Plaintiff, a lawyer to contribute to the study of the Law of Evidence in Ghana by publishing a book based on the Evidence Act, NRCD 323, 1975, unintentionally, no doubt, is now making a contribution to the development of commercial litigation law in the field of intellectual property”
These are a departure from the often-mundane approach in many recent judgements from the Ghanaian courts. For someone who loves the Francois and Taylors of old, I am happy to note that in Justice Ackaah-Boafo, perhaps the spirits of these indomitable judicial figures will be kept alive in our Courts.
Conclusion
All of Justice Ackaah-Boafo’s students are elated at the news of his nomination because we know that these attributes above and many more make him an excellent pick for the apex Court. I am confident that in this new role, he will contribute immensely to the development of Ghanaian law. The only downside to his nomination, on a lighter note, is that law students and lawyers should get ready to read even longer judgments from the Supreme Court when he is in coram. And you better look at the applicable Canadian Supreme Court authorities on a matter if you want to appear before him with persuasive authorities.
Finally, there’s another favourite lecturer of mine that we are all rooting for to go to the apex Court as well. We know that in the fullness of his time, he would hopefully be nominated. When that time comes, I will be back to provide my reflections on him as well. For now, congratulations to My Lord Justice Ackaah-Boafo. We wish you well for the rest of the consideration process. We are hopeful that you will leave a mark at the apex court in laying down sound principles of law that will illuminate our jurisprudence for many years to come.
*******
The writer, Benjamin Alpha Aidoo, is a proud student of Justice Ackaah-Boafo at the Ghana School of Law. He can be contacted via email at alphaben30@gmail.com
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
