of 60 /60

Judicial Corruption in Ghana

Embed Size (px)

Text of Judicial Corruption in Ghana





MAY 5, 2013

Table of ContentsIntroduction..................................2Background of the Judicial System of Ghana....4

Pre-Colonial Era.................................4The Colonial Era.................................6Independence, Civilian and Military Governments.........8

What is Judicial Corruption?.................11Case studies.................................15New Patriotic Party v. Attorney General.....16Republic v. Mensa-Bonsu......................20Conclusion...................................35



IntroductionCorruption is an insidious practice that occurs in different

settings and scenarios, around the world. In Ghana however, the

topic of judicial corruption has been one that several judges,

lawyers and jurists consider controversial and shy away from


Recently, four lawyers, labeled as the ‘gang of four’ by the

Ghanaian media, were summoned before the General Legal Council of

Ghana after they made public statements suggesting that some

Ghanaian judges were corrupt.1 A roundtable discussion was

organized by the National Commission for Civic Education during

which justice delivery in Ghana was discussed.2

The four lawyers, Raymond Atuguba, David Annan, Abraham

Amaliba and Larry Bimi all stated that based on their personal

experiences, they were convinced that Ghanaian judges were

corrupt.3 A particular statement that Raymond Atuguba made was

played repeatedly on radio stations to wit: “Between 1997 and 1999, I

1 http://allafrica.com/stories/201106031106.html, last viewed 5/2/2013 at 9:05am2 Ibid3 http://edition.myjoyonline.com/pages/news/201104/65053.php, last viewed 5/2/2013 at 9:10am


stayed in the house of a judge, and so there is nobody in Ghana who can convince me

that judges are not corrupt”.4 According to Atuguba, he lived with his

uncle, who is currently a Supreme Court Judge and there were

several instances that this judge had to turn away persons who

came to their home bearing bribes and gifts.5

Subsequently, the Association of Magistrates and Judges of

Ghana (AMJG) petitioned the General Legal Council to sanction the

four lawyers unless they could substantiate the allegations of

corruption that they leveled against judges.6 The General Legal

Council is the institution with the authority to sanction lawyers

who breach the rules of professional conduct.7

Additionally, the AMJG issued a communiqué that its members

were recusing themselves from hearing any matter in which any of

the four lawyers was counsel for a party until the matter was

resolved by the General Legal Council.8 Thus, in one instance,

the Supreme Court refused to adjudicate in a matter, pending

4 Ibid5 Ibid6 http://allafrica.com/stories/201106031106.html, last viewed 5/2/2013 at 9:05am am7 Sections 16 and 17 of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32)8 http://allafrica.com/stories/201106031106.html, last viewed 5/2/2013 at 9:05am am


before them, in which Raymond Atuguba was counsel for the

petitioner, until Atuguba withdrew his representation.9

Eventually, the AMJG withdrew its petition from the General

Legal Council and the lawyers were permitted to practice again.10

However, this matter caused Ghanaians to debate about whether or

not judicial corruption was still in existence in Ghana, what

acts constitute judicial corruption and whether there were any

‘tell-tale’ signs of corruption or whether it is possible to

glean that a judge has been corrupt after reading his decision in

a case, observing the proceedings in court and the behavior of

the judge outside court in connection with the case.

This article seeks to answer these questions by analyzing

two related cases namely New Patriotic Party (NPP) v. Attorney-

General11 and Republic v. Mensa-Bonsu12. It is the author’s humble

opinion that these two cases demonstrate that judicial corruption

exists in Ghana just as it exists in every other country in the

world. On the same day that news stations reported Atuguba’s9 http://thechronicle.com.gh/atuguba-booted-out-of-court/, last viewed 5/2/2013 at 9:20 am10 http://www.citifmonline.com/index.php?id=1.879858, last viewed 5/2/2013 at 9:30 am11 [1993-94] 2 GLR 35 12 [1995-96] 1 GLR 377


statements regarding judicial corruption in Ghana, the Judicial

Council of Ghana dismissed two magistrates after it found that

they had taken bribes from litigants in matters13. This incident

in itself is proof that judicial corruption does occur in Ghana.

This article will delineate certain clues which when

discovered in a judicial decision, proceedings in court or when

detected in the behavior of a judge in relation to a case,

indicate that judicial corruption is likely to have occurred.

Background of the Judicial System of GhanaGhana’s judicial system and the laws which established that

judicial system are derived from diverse sources. Ghana’s

constitution expressly states that the sources of Ghanaian law

include the Constitution itself, traditional customary law

sourced from the different ethnic groups in Ghana, the principles

of the common law of England and doctrines of equity, as well as,

existing law that was passed before the Constitution was enacted

since Ghana has been through four republics and several military


13 http://gbcghana.com/index.php?id=1.552724, last viewed 5/2/2013 at 10:00 am14 Article 4 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana


The perceptions that ordinary citizens, lawyers and even

judges hold, concerning judicial corruption, are influenced by

Ghana’s history and her past. Therefore, in order to analyze

judicial corruption in Ghana, one must comprehend the role of

judges in different eras of Ghana’s past.

Pre-Colonial EraBefore Ghana was colonized by the British, Ghana was

occupied by several ethnic groups including the Asantes, Fantes,

Gas and Gonjas and each group had its distinct laws and customs,

systems of governance and judicial systems.15

For example, it has been well documented that among the

Asantes, the king wore a lot of hats as he was the nation’s chief

executive officer, administrative officer, spiritual leader and

chief judge. 16 He was widely revered and his judgments were said

to be the decisions of the spirit ancestors themselves and it was

a popular axiom that ‘the King can do no wrong’.17 He was said to

be imbued with supernatural powers and as a rule, the king was

15 Roger S. Gocking, The History of Ghana, 2005, Greenwood Press, pages 19-2516 R.S. Rattray, Ashanti Law and Constitution,1969, Negro Universities Press, page 9317 Ibid page 81


never supposed to slap his subjects because it was believed that

his slap could render a person insane.18

In practice though, the king was not supposed to make any

decision alone but he was supposed to be assisted by his council

of elders in making all decisions including those of a judicial

nature. 19 Additionally, in practice, whenever he sat as a judge

in court, the king was supposed to permit his spokesperson and

council of elders to do most of the talking and he would only

interrupt occasionally to guide the case.20

The stature of a king in pre-colonial eras may influence the

way the ordinary Ghanaian today perceives judges and the response

of citizens and the Ghanaian society to judicial corruption. As

noted above, the judge in the traditional Ghanaian society was

highly revered, held to do no wrong and even his edicts were

edicts of the ancestors.

Under such circumstances, it must certainly have been

difficult for the ordinary citizen in the traditional society to

18 Ibid19 Ibid page 8220 Ibid page 81


assert that the king or judge was corrupt and seek redress for

such corruption. Given this background, it is highly likely that

even today, some Ghanaians may be somewhat ignorant about the

fact that judges are accountable. Thus, they may put judges up on

a pedestal and find it difficult to challenge the decision of a

corrupt judge.

Another culture in traditional Ghanaian society that could

color the perspective of Ghanaian citizens and prevent them from

protesting against judicial corruption is the practice that was

known as aseda21 in the Asante society. As part of this practice,

once judgment was delivered in a case, the innocent party was

compulsorily supposed to make certain payments to the king or

judge as a token of appreciation while the guilty party could at

times be permitted to make certain payments to the judge/king to

‘buy his head’ and save himself from being punished.22

This could be problematic because the payments appear to be

a form of institutionalized corruption and a sign of a rent-

seeking government. Since this practice is part and parcel of

21 Aseda means thanksgiving in the Twi language spoken by Asantes22 Rattray, op cit. page 383


traditional law, a person today may not realize that he is being

taken advantage of when a judge demands money from him in order

not to sentence him to prison. Such a person may not even realize

that he has a right not to be subjected to extortion by public

officials including judges.

The Colonial EraColonization was introduced into Ghana in 1844 after some

Ghanaian chiefs signed a bond with British officials recognizing

the “power and jurisdiction” of British officials and conceding

the adjudication of serious crimes to British officials with the

purpose of “moulding the customs of the country to the general

principles of British law”.23

Laws were passed which decreased the authority of judgments

of kings of the ethnic group and making these judgments

appealable to the district commissioner’s court.24 Additionally,

a Bill was introduced which gave the governor power to “suspend

for a stated time or to depose any chief who shall appear to him

23 Roger S. Gocking, op cit, page 3224 Ibid page 40


to have abused his power or be unworthy or incapable of

exercising the same justly”.25

Colonial judges were not accountable to the native subjects

but their first loyalties lay with the crown. Judges, especially

Chief Justices, played a central political role in the colonial

administration and served as legislative councilors and members

of the executive council of key advisers to the colonial

executive.26 Some colonial judges sat in elective legislative

assemblies and were expected to support the executive’s

initiatives and policies.27

The imperial authorities continued to control chief justice

appointments in order to prevent superior courts from siding with

powerful local interests and this caused judges to serve and make

decisions at the pleasure of the Crown.28

The effect of all this was to create a judicial system which

was more or less designed to serve the wishes of the executive

and where judges who refused to submit to the will of the25 Ibid page 4126 John McLaren, Dewigged, Bothered and Bewildered: British Colonial Judges on Trial, 1800-1900, 2011, Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History, page 2927 Ibid28 Ibid page 42


executive could be disciplined or removed. This was the judicial

system that Ghana inherited after it became independent of

colonial rule and the successive governments of Ghana appear to

have maintained this status quo in one way or the other.

In effect, a systemic form of judicial corruption was

created where some judges would bend over backwards to please the

executive whenever cases involving the executive came before the

courts of law. This was done by the judges to ensure that they

would secure their positions and probably even attain promotion.

This practice was most evident in the highest court of the land

as opposed to the lower courts (such as magistrate courts)

because matters involving the executive would typically be

constitutional matters which could only be determined by the

highest court of the land.

For example, currently, the highest court of the land in

Ghana is the Supreme Court and it has original jurisdiction to

determine all matters that relate to the enforcement and

interpretation of the Constitution.29

29 Article 130 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana


Independence, Civilian and Military GovernmentsGhana gained independence in 1957 and subsequently, there

were periods of civilian rule interspersed with military

governments but the practice of the executive consistently trying

to get the judiciary to kowtow to its whims and caprices and some

judges towing the line of the government was perpetuated.

The first President of Ghana, Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah,

for example, dismissed the Chief Justice, Sir Arku Korsah, after

he acquitted certain persons who were on trial for attempting to

assassinate Dr. Nkrumah.30 Prior to the military overthrow of Dr.

Nkrumah, there were several bomb explosions in and around Accra,

the capital city of Ghana, resulting in casualties and


Dr. Nkrumah himself sustained fragmentation wounds after a

bomb went off in a town called Kulungugu and a group of people

were put on trial for attempting to assassinate Dr. Nkrumah.32

Chief Justice Korsah acquitted the accused persons because the

evidence against them was extremely weak.33 Nevertheless, he was

30 Roger S. Gocking, op cit, pages 136 and 13731 Ibid32 Ibid33 Ibid


dismissed presumably because Dr. Nkrumah believed that the

accused persons were guilty and should have been convicted.34

The next civilian government led by Prime Minister Busia

also succumbed to the temptation of the executive demanding that

the judiciary tows its line. Dr. Busia sacked 568 public servants

for “poor service” and a senior public servant called Sallah sued

the Government in court for wrongful dismissal and won.35 Dr.

Busia issued a statement that he would not abide by the court’s

ruling because “no court” could compel him to rescind his

decision to sack the public servants.36

The military governments were very autocratic and went to

extreme lengths to ensure that the judiciary complied with their

wishes. For example, during the era of the Provisional National

Defence Council (PNDC) military government (1981 to 1993), three

high court judges- Justices Sarkodee, Agyepong and Cecilia

Koranteng Addow, were abducted and murdered on the night of June

30 1982.37

34 Ibid35 Robert Woode, Third World to First World- by One Touch, 2011, Trafford Publishing, page 3336 Ibid37 Roger S. Gocking, op cit, page 191


The PNDC government claimed that the judges were killed by

“enemies of the revolution” but there were rumors that it was the

PNDC government itself which had abducted and killed the judges

because the judges had rendered judgments that stepped on the

toes of key members of the PNDC government especially, Jerry John

Rawlings, who was the PNDC chairman.38

It was further alleged that the keys of the vehicle which

was used to abduct the judge’s was picked from the home of the

PNDC’s chairman, Rawlings.39 Subsequently, Kwei, a member of the

PNDC was arrested and executed for the murder of the judges. Kwei

stated that the National Security coordinator of the PNDC (and

the PNDC chairman’s friend) was the brain behind the murders,

implying that there was official complicity in the murders of the

judges. 40 However, none of the high ranking PNDC officials were

prosecuted for the murders.41

38 Ibid39 George Sarpong, The Murky Truth, published in the World Press Review April 1 2004 edition and, posted on world press review website http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/1827.cfm 40 Ibid41 Ibid


The PNDC set up revolutionary courts including public

tribunals which were said to “use unorthodox methods”.42 The

regime regularly cast the regular courts in a negative light and

used the government-controlled press to discredit the regular

courts and their judges.43 The public tribunals mostly tried

criminal offences like coup plotting and “economic sabotage”

which was defined to include embezzlement and black market

trafficking; regularly imposing the death penalty on persons who

were convicted.44

The public tribunal personnel were poorly paid and so they

were open to bribery. On several occasions, the Chairman of the

PNDC forced tribunals to reconsider their verdicts when they

displeased him.45 Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International

both expressed concern about the state of justice delivery at

that time and in particular, the corrupt nature of the public

tribunals; the fact that they were used to try ‘political

42 Roger S. Gocking, op cit, page 20243 Ibid44 Ibid page 20345 Ibid


opponents’ and the fact that the death penalty was freely handed

out to convicts.46

These events were the prelude to the first case that is the

subject matter of this article namely New Patriotic Part v.

Attorney-General47 because this case was decided a few months

after the PNDC government handed over power to the NDC civilian

government in 1993. In truth, the NDC was the civilian version of

the PNDC government because the President of the NDC government

was Jerry John Rawlings who used to be the chairman of the PNDC

and several government officials in the NDC government were

former PNDC government officials48.

What is Judicial Corruption?Much has been written about corruption in general and

institutions like Transparency International and the World Bank

have worked extensively in recruiting information and data on

corruption in governance institutions. Nevertheless, it appears

that the issue of judicial corruption has not been tackled by as

46 Ibid page 20447 [1993-94] 2 GLR 3548 Roger S. Gocking, op cit, page 211


many authors and institutions the same way that say, corruption

in the executive wing of Government, has been handled.

The phrase “corruption” itself has been defined in different

ways. The World Bank defines corruption as the abuse of public office for

private gain and states that public office is abused for private

gain when officials accept, solicit or extort bribes or when

private agents offer bribes to circumvent public policies and

processes for competitive advantage and profit.49

Transparency International, on the other hand, defines

corruption as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain and it further

classifies corruption as grand, petty and political depending on

the amounts of money that has been lost and the sector where it

occurs.50 Grand corruption occurs at a high level of government

while petty corruption is perpetrated by mid-level public

officials who provide services to citizens in hospitals, schools

and police departments. Political corruption, as its name

implies, occurs in the political arena.

49 http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/anticorrupt/corruptn/cor02.htm, lastviewed 5/2/2013 at 10:17am50 http://www.transparency.org/whoweare/organisation/faqs_on_corruption, last viewed 5/2/2013 at 10:30 am


Based on all the above, judicial corruption can be said to

be the situation where a judge abuses his office for private

gain. A judge may abuse his office by delaying the delivery of

his judgment in order to force a party to pay to speed up

proceedings; demanding payments for obtaining favorable decisions

and by delaying the fulfillment of duties such as issuing

warrants of arrests or releasing suspects as a way of compelling

parties or their relatives to make some payments.51

Other examples of judicial corruption or judges abusing

their office for private gain include where a judge makes

deliberate errors when he records court proceedings, in order to

cast one party in a favorable light. In certain jurisdictions

like Ghana, some courts have not been computerized and so some

judges are tasked with manually recording the proceedings that

occur in court. It is the judge’s record of proceedings that is

eventually typed out by the court recorders and then certified as

the formal record of proceedings.

51 Examples are taken from a paper presented by Chief Justice Mario F.B. Mangaze at a Commonwealth Colloquium on “Combating Corruption Within the Judiciary” heldfrom June 25-27 2002 in Limassol, Cyprus and consequently published in HeinOnline.


Thus, a corrupt judge can deliberately conceal what actually

happened in court either by omitting to record certain

proceedings or by recording that certain things occurred in court

when they never did.

Another example of a judge abusing his position could occur

where in writing out his decision; he deliberately misquotes or

misapplies statutes and cases in order to obtain a particular


For the purposes of this article, judicial corruption would

be limited to the judge’s actions in respect of the particular

cases that come before him. Thus, actions of the judge that are

not in connection with a case that has come before him would not

be considered in this article. For example, a judge may sometimes

abuse his office or power by sexually harassing his clerk. As

reprehensible as such acts may be, this article will not delve

into them.

The definition of judicial corruption above mentions

‘private gain’ and for the purposes of this article, private gain

need not be monetary but it refers to any gain that the judge has


received, is receiving or expects to receive. For example, a

judge may deliberately misinterpret the law in order to render

judgment in favor of one party if he believes that doing so may

help him secure a promotion or it may help secure a social

relationship he has. All these instances would be considered as

acts of judicial corruption so far as this article is concerned.

Judicial corruption, like other forms of corruption, can

become systemic when it is persistently perpetrated and becomes

entrenched in a society. Judicial corruption becomes systemic

when it gets to the point where a judge will only perform his

duties in exchange for benefits including, but not limited to,


There is always a high price to pay for corruption.

Corruption has a negative effect on the efficiency of a nation’s

institutions. Systemic corruption leads to a general perception

by citizens that the society is inequitable and this dampens any

incentives that poorer citizens could have to generate wealth.53

52 Edgardo Buscaglia, Judicial Corruption in Developing Countries: Its Causes and Economic Consequences, 1999, Stanford University Press, page 153 Ibid pages 10 and 11


It also causes the average citizen to cease demanding for public

goods from the official system although he is entitled to them.54

The end result of all this is a decrease, over time, of

economic productivity since citizens begin to believe that

allocation of resources is determined by corrupt practices and

not by productivity. 55 These citizens will then begin to turn to

illicit activities and crimes like armed robbery and internet

fraud schemes in order to generate funds so that they can also

bribe their way to obtaining public services.56

Klitgaard’s formula on corruption enables us to comprehend

judicial corruption better. He theorized that C = M + D – A,

Corruption equals monopoly plus discretion minus accountability.


The more monopoly a judge has in delivering his judgment,

the easier it is for that judge to be corrupted. Therefore, where

it is only one judge making decisions, it is easier for him to be

corrupted than it is to corrupt several judges who are charged54 Ibid55 Ibid56 Ibid 57 Robert Klitgaard, International Co-operation against Corruption, Finance & Development Magazine, March 1998 edition, Volume 35 No. 1, page 3


with making a decision. For example, it may be easier to bribe a

magistrate who sits alone in court than to bribe all the members

of the Supreme Court.

Discretion can also make it easier for a judge to become

corrupt. The more room for discretion allocated to a judge, the

easier it is for him to be corrupt. Therefore, where there are

strict rules governing each stage of the trial, it becomes

increasingly difficult for a corrupt judge to manipulate the

proceedings in court in favor of the party he wants to win.

Judicial Accountability reduces corruption because the more

people a judge has to answer to or explain his actions to, the

less corrupt he can afford to be since his actions would be

scrutinized by a large group of people.

Case studiesTwo decided cases shall be scrutinized as case studies in

this article. The first case, NPP v. Attorney-General, involved

the celebration of the anniversary of a coup d’etat by a newly

elected government and the assertion by an opposition party that

the intended celebration was unconstitutional.


This legal dispute between the opposition and the government

led to a case being filed and argued before the Supreme Court of

Ghana. A judgment was delivered by the court and each Supreme

Court judge read out his judgment in open court. In reading out

his judgment, one of these judges, Justice Abban, deliberately

attributed a quotation to a person who never made that quotation.

He did this because he wanted to strengthen the government’s case

in order to gain benefits from the government and by attributing

the quotation to the wrong source; he was strengthening the

government’s case. The details of the quotation and how it

strengthened the government’s case are discussed more

comprehensively below58.

After the judge read out his decision, a lawyer discovered

the judge’s act of corruption and the fact that he had

deliberately attributed the quotation to the wrong person. That

lawyer wrote to inform the judge that he was aware of the fact

that the judge had committed an act of corruption and the lawyer

also published his discovery in a newspaper. What followed were a58 The case is discussed in detail in the section entitled ‘New Patriotic Party v. Attorney-General’. Particularly, the sub-section entitled ‘Page 28’ discusses the quotation in question, the true source of that quotation and howattributing the quotation to the wrong source strengthened the judge’s case.


series of actions taken by the judge and other people in a

desperate attempt to cover the judge’s corrupt act. The actions

culminated in the judge altering the original decision he read

out in open court and pretending that the altered decision was

actually what he read out in open court despite the fact that

several lawyers and judges who were in court on the judgment day

heard him read out his judgment and attribute the quotation to

the wrong source. The two cases are set out below and discussed

in detail.

New Patriotic Party v. Attorney General59

Facts The plaintiff in this case was the New Patriotic Party,

which was a registered political party. On 31st December 1981,

the constitutionally elected government of Ghana was overthrown

by the military in a coup d'etat and the PNDC took over the reins

of government.

The PNDC declared 31st December as a statutory public

holiday and proceeded to celebrate this holiday annually with

public funds. The celebrations basically involved personnel of

59 Op cit


the security forces going on military parades and route marches

with carnivals being held throughout the country.

On 7th January 1993, the PNDC handed over power to the

civilian NDC government which had been elected into office under

a new constitution, namely the 1992 Constitution of the Republic

of Ghana. Nevertheless, on 19th December 1993, the new government

announced that 31st December 1993 would be a public holiday and

should be celebrated and observed as such.

The plaintiff sued the government through the Attorney-

General. It was the plaintiff’s case that the planned celebration

was unconstitutional and the plaintiff sought a declaration that

the public celebration of the coup d'etat of 31st December out of

public funds was inconsistent with or in contravention of the

letter and spirit of the newly enacted 1992 Constitution

particularly articles 3(3)-(7), 35(1) and 41(f). Consequently,

the plaintiff sought for an order compelling the government to

cancel the preparations for the celebration and refrain from

carrying out the celebration with public funds.


ArgumentsThe Plaintiff’s argument was essentially that it was clear

from the relevant provisions of the 1992 Constitution that the

people of Ghana had resolved never to allow the Constitution to

be overthrown or undermined and since the intended celebration

would glorify coups d'etat and in the result would undermine the

people's resolve to resist coups, it would be unconstitutional.

Accordingly, expenditure of public funds on the celebration would

constitute waste and misuse of public funds which the

Constitution enjoined the people to resist.

The Attorney-General, on the other hand, argued that the

celebration of 31st December as a public holiday could not be

said to be subverting or overthrowing the Constitution because

31st December was a statutory public holiday by virtue of the

Public Holidays Law, 1989 (PNDCL 220) and moneys were lawfully

appropriated under the 1993 budget estimates approved by

Parliament for its celebration in recognition of the historical

values and good works that the revolution stood for and

therefore, the intended expenditure was lawful.


IssuesThe main issue in this case was whether or not the

celebration of the 31st December holiday was unconstitutional

because it contravened the letter and spirit of the constitution;

regardless of the fact that the celebration was sanctioned by an

existing law namely Public Holidays Law, 1989 (PNDCL 220).

Decision of the CourtThe Supreme Court of Ghana ruled that the celebration of the

31st December holiday out of public funds was unconstitutional.

The Court reasoned that the celebrations would have the tendency

to glorify the coup d'etat of 31st December and in so doing; it

would be unfair to persons who were adversely affected by the

coup. These persons were precluded from suing the soldiers who

carried out the coup and its attendant atrocities because Section

34(2) of the transitional provisions contained in the 1992

Constitution provided indemnity to the people who orchestrated

the coup and committed some atrocities thereunder.

The Supreme Court was of the view that celebrating the

anniversary of the coup would weaken the people's resolve to

perform their duty of defending the Constitution which was


imposed on them by Article 3(4)(a) of the Constitution; thus,

causing the Constitution to be undermined and subverted.

The Supreme Court justices stated that although the

celebration might not be a violent means of subverting the

Constitution, 1992, it surely was an unlawful means. The planned

celebration was inconsistent with the duty to defend the

Constitution and it was therefore clearly against the letter and

spirit of the Constitution.

There was thus no logical reason for 31st December to be

celebrated as a national holiday and financed out of public

resources. Since the celebration of 31st December would be

unjustified, any expenditure of public funds, in that regard,

would be a misuse and waste of public funds. Article 41(f) of the

Constitution imposed a duty on every citizen of the country to

protect and preserve public property and expose and combat misuse

and waste of public funds and property and this is precisely what

the plaintiff sought to do. Thus, the plaintiff’s claim was



Page 28A controversial matter occurred during the rendering of the

decision of one of the Supreme Court justices who heard the 31st

December case and that incident is the crux of this article.

Although the Supreme Court ruled that the planned

celebrations were unconstitutional, in reality, the case was

decided by a slim majority of five to four. The decision of one

of the dissenting justices, Justice Abban, subsequently came

under great scrutiny in a scandal popularly dubbed the “Page 28

Saga” by the media at that time.

In reading his dissenting judgment, which stated that the

planned celebrations were constitutional, Justice Abban averred

that Busia, a former Prime Minister of Ghana and one of the

founding fathers of the plaintiff New Patriotic Party, had once

written a statement in support of a coup d’etat and the

celebration of the anniversary of that coup d’etat. The judge

stated that Busia’s statement could be found in the February 24,

1970 edition of the Daily Graphic newspaper.


Justice Abban made this statement to support an assertion in

his decision that previous civilian governments had celebrated

holidays of preceding military governments although the

Constitutions under which those civilian governments operated

contained provisions identical to provisions in the 1992

Constitution which plaintiff claimed made the planned

celebrations unconstitutional.

Thus, if almost all previous civilian governments celebrated

anniversaries of coup d’etats in spite of Constitutional

provisions encouraging citizens to defend the Constitution, then

there was no reason why the planned celebrations should be

declared unconstitutional merely because of a provision in the

1992 Constitution that mandated citizens to defend the


Additionally, by stating that Busia, a founding father of

the plaintiff made that statement, Justice Abban was weakening

the plaintiff’s case by asserting that the plaintiff itself and

its founding fathers had once approved of coup d’etats and of the


celebration of anniversaries of coup d’etats and so the

plaintiff’s case was frivolous.

The controversy arose out of the fact that a lawyer who was

in court when Justice Abban read his decision subsequently

perused the February 24, 1970 Daily Graphic paper and discovered

that Busia had never made the statement that the judge attributed

to him. The lawyer further discovered that the statement

attributed to Busia was actually part of the editorial of the

February 24, 1970 Daily Graphic and that the judge had copied

this editorial word for word and fraudulently attributed to

Busia. This matter led to the Republic v. Mensa-Bonsu60 case

which shall be discussed next.

Republic v. Mensa-Bonsu61

FactsAfter the Supreme Court had delivered its judgment in the

case of New Patriotic Party v. Attorney-General, Mensa-Bonsu, a

lawyer and columnist of the Free Press newspaper obtained a copy

of the dissenting decision of Justice Abban from the Deputy

Judicial Secretary. 60 Op cit61 Op cit


Subsequently, Mensa-Bonsu wrote to Justice Abban that a

statement praising a coup d'etat which the judge had attributed

to Dr K. A. Busia at page 28 of his judgment was in fact the

editorial opinion of the newspaper titled "Graphic View". Mensa-

Bonsu called on the judge to offer an explanation for the mistake

and attached a photocopy of the publication to his letter.

Mensa-Bonsu also copied the letter to the Chief Justice and

published a copy of the letter in his column in the Free Press of

13th May 1994. That issue of the Free Press newspaper also

carried an article entitled "Justice Abban is a Liar" which

accused the judge of displaying “political chicanery and

bamboozlement of Ghanaians” by his conduct.

Subsequently, the registrar of the Supreme Court wrote to

Mensa-Bonsu on the directions of the Chief Justice; informing

Mensa-Bonsu that at page 28 of a certified true copy of the

judgment of Justice Abban, the judge had attributed the statement

in question to the "Graphic View" and not to Busia. The registrar

enclosed a copy of page 28 in his letter.


Mensa-Bonsu replied the registrar of the Supreme Court,

stating, that Justice Abban had altered the text of what he had

read in court to meet his criticism. In the meantime, the Free

Press newspaper continued to publish articles accusing Justice

Abban of being a dishonest judge.

Following the publication of these articles, Justice Abban

lodged a complaint against Mensa-Bonsu and Free Press newspaper

with the National Media Commission which is responsible for

sanctioning journalists who breach ethical rules of their


Subsequently, Justice Abban withdrew his complaint from the

Media Commission and then lodged a complaint with the police

against Mensa-Bonsu and some other persons associated with the

Free Press newspaper. The police took statements from Mensa-Bonsu

and the other individuals reported by Justice Abban but they were

not charged with any criminal offence.

Finally, the Attorney-General sued Mensa-Bonsu and some

other individuals associated with the Free Press newspaper for

contempt of court. The Attorney-General contended that the


publications in the Free Press constituted a gross contempt of

court because they were calculated to erode public confidence in

the administration of the law and impair the authority of the

judiciary as an independent organ of state. The Attorney-General

further claimed that the publications in Free Press were a

baseless attack on the integrity or impartiality of the courts

and judges and had scandalized both Justice Abban and the Supreme


IssueThe main issue in this case was whether or not Mensa-Bonsu

was guilty of contempt of court because of the articles he

published in the Free Press newspaper in which he accused Justice

Abban of chicanery and dishonesty.

Decision of the CourtThe Supreme Court ruled by a majority of six to three that

Mensa-Bonsu was guilty of contempt because the “scurrilous abuse”

of a judge in his capacity as a judge constituted contempt

because it scandalized the court.

The court further decided that Mensa-Bonsu had called

Justice Abban a liar, a criminal, a biased and partial judge and


one who used political and judicial chicanery to judge a case;

and these words amounted to scurrilous abuse of the judge in his

capacity as a judge and therefore amounted to the contempt of

scandalizing the court.

The interesting fact about the judgment in this case is that

the judges who held that Mensa-Bonsu was liable of contempt all

shied away from delving into the evidence available in the

matter. In essence, these judges refused to inquire into whether

or not indeed, in reading out his judgment in the 31st December

case, Justice Abban had erroneously attributed a statement to

Busia. Further, the judges failed to investigate the probability

that Justice Abban had subsequently altered his judgment, removed

the portion attributing a statement to Busia and substituted it

with sentences attributing the statement to the editorial.

Infact, one of the judges who found Mensa-Bonsu liable of

contempt stated

Truth or otherwise of the matter published is no defence in law in the case of

contempt of court, and this is why I would refrain from making any finding on


the issue about the genuineness or otherwise of [the original judgment tendered

in evidence by Mensa-Bonsu].62

Probably, the reason why the judges refused to delve into

whether or not Justice Abban had erroneously attributed a

statement to Busia and then altered his judgment is because they

all knew this was the glaring truth. All the evidence clearly

pointed towards this fact.

To start with, and quite ironically, some of the judges who

decided the contempt case against Mensa-Bonsu were the same

judges who decided the 31st December case and so they were

present in court when Justice Abban erroneously attributed the

statement to Busia.

In a dramatic turn of events, one of the judges who decided

the Mensa-Bonsu case, stated in his judgment that he himself had

clearly heard Justice Abban attribute the statement to Busia in

open court. Justice Amua-Sekyi stated thus

I did listen carefully enough to the reading of the opinion and have a good

enough memory to remember what [Justice Abban] said. I heard him say clearly

62 Per Justice Bamford-Addo, Republic v. Mensa-Bonsu, op cit, page 478


and distinctly that he was quoting a passage from a speech [Busia] made in


This makes this case one of patent corruption. Firstly, a

judge copied a statement word for word from a newspaper

editorial. Instead of attributing the statement to its rightful

source, the judge deliberately attributed the statement to the

founding father of a party which was the plaintiff in the case

which the judge was deciding.

The intention of the judge in doing this was to weaken the

plaintiff’s case so that the judge could decide the case in favor

of the defendant (the government). Once someone detected what was

going on and drew the judge’s attention to it, the judge then

changed tack and altered his own judgment, which he had delivered

in open court, to the hearing of lawyers, judges and other


The judge did all these things in order to obtain private

gain. He practically bent over backwards to deliver a judgment

that was in the government’s favor in order to curry favor with

the government. Securing the favor of the government is highly


beneficial to a judge since it often causes the government to

promote that judge.

In return, governments, especially corrupt and authoritarian

governments, love corrupt judges because they are easy to

manipulate and they would dance to whatever tune the executive

sings in order to keep their bread buttered. Therefore, it comes

as no surprise that shortly after the Mensa-Bonsu case was

decided, President Jerry John Rawlings appointed Justice Abban as

Chief Justice and he occupied that position until his demise in


The final portion of this article will analyze the text of

Justice Abban’s decision in the 31st December case in order to

detect evidence of corruption therein. Additionally, the details

of the facts that followed the delivery of Justice Abban’s

decision will be analyzed to determine the actions therein that

pointed to presence of judicial corruption.

63 From the official website of the judicial service of Ghana http://www.judicial.gov.gh/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=69. Justice Abban’s death was reported by several websites including http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=14783 and http://www.seychellesweekly.com/March%205,%202012/top3_chief_justice_abban.html


By analyzing all these germane details, the author intends

to create a sort of blue-print that will assist other people such

as litigants, lawyers, judges, court officials, civil society and

all other stakeholders to detect corruption when it occurs. It is

the author’s belief that by examining a judge’s decision, court

proceedings and the behavior of that judge outside court, in

connection to the case before him, one can glean evidence of

judicial corruption.

The text of Justice Abban’s decisionBefore analyzing the text of Justice Abban’s decision, it is

pertinent to note that he committed two distinct acts of

corruption via his writing. Firstly, Justice Abban deliberately

attributed a quotation to Busia when he knew that Busia never

made the statement in question. Secondly, when his first act of

corruption was discovered, Justice Abban then proceeded to alter

his judgment in order to hide his previous corrupt act.

The texts of Justice Abban’s two judgments (the original

judgment and the altered judgment) contain clues that point to

the fact that the two acts of corruption, delineated above, had

been committed.


To commence the analysis, it is important to set out the

relevant portion of Justice Abban’s original judgment and the

equivalent portion of Justice Abban’s altered judgment.

The relevant portion of the original judgment stated64

The Busia Government continued to exclude 1 July—Republic Day—from the list

of public Holidays, but continued to celebrate 24 February as a public holiday

under the heading "Liberation Day." But as I stated earlier on, the Busia

Government actually celebrated it as a "Revolution Day."

The Daily Graphic of Tuesday 24th February 1970 No. 6033, carried the speech of

Dr. Busia on that day; and I will quote a few extracts from it (emphasis


This portion was altered to read

The Busia Government continued to exclude 1 July—Republic Day—from the list

of public Holidays, but continued to celebrate 24 February as a public holiday

under the heading "Liberation Day." But as I stated earlier on, the Busia

Government actually celebrated it as a "Revolution Day."

64 Justice Amua-Sekyi reproduced the original statement of Justice Abban’s judgment in his decision at page 421 of Republic v. Mensa Bonsu op cit


"The Daily Graphic of Tuesday 24th February 1970 No. 6033, carried the speech

of Dr. Busia on that celebration. I will however quote a few extracts from

the 'Graphic View' that day (emphasis mine)

Before even comparing the two statements in order to fish

out tell-tale signs that one of the statements was altered, the

original statement itself offers clues that the judge was

engaging in a corrupt act of deliberately attributing a quotation

to the wrong source. The last sentence of the original judgment

contains an ambiguity. That sentence reads: “The Daily Graphic of

Tuesday 24th February 1970 No. 6033, carried the speech of Dr. Busia on that day; and

I will quote a few extracts from it”(emphasis mine).

Since the Daily Graphic in question actually reported the

full speech of Dr. Busia (a speech which the judge deliberately

ignored), an ambiguous situation is created by the use of the

word “it” in the sentence. “It” could refer either to ‘The Daily

Graphic of Tuesday 24th February 1970 No. 6033’ or “it” could refer to ‘the

speech of Dr Busia on that day’ which was ‘carried’ by the Daily Graphic.

This is curious because in legal writing, lawyers and judges are

trained to avoid any ambiguity in the addresses and judgments


they write and a seasoned judge such as Justice Abban would have

been aware of this basic principle of legal writing.

One possible explanation for this ambiguity is the fact that

the judge knew that he was attributing a quotation to the wrong

source and thus, in order to avoid being later accused of this

very act, he created an ambiguity about which exact source he was

quoting from.

One can then say, that the judge wrote in this manner so

that if someone later detected that he had misquoted Busia, he

could say in defence that when he stated that “I will quote a few

extracts from it”, he meant that he was going to quote a few extracts

from the Daily Graphic and not from Dr. Busia’s speech itself.

This excuse might have been the judge’s first intended line

of defence but he probably decided to switch plans and backup his

defence by altering his judgment when there was a huge public

outcry about his actions. Ambiguity and duplicity are

characteristics of dishonest offences such as corruption because

the perpetrators of dishonest offences attempt to cover their


tracks beforehand by making it difficult to decipher that they

indeed intended to commit a dishonest act.

Comparing these two statements will bring out certain clues

that will prove that the first statement was truly the statement

the judge originally wrote and that he altered his judgment to

produce the second statement.

The very first sentence in both statements refers to the

Busia government and mentions that they celebrated the

anniversary of February 24th which is the date of Ghana’s first

coup d’etat. The sentence reads “The Busia Government continued to

exclude 1 July—Republic Day—from the list of public Holidays, but continued to

celebrate 24 February as a public holiday under the heading "Liberation Day.”

In legal practice and legal writing, any assertion one makes

must be backed by evidence or proof. Thus, because Justice Abban

asserted that the Busia government celebrated the anniversary of

a coup; he had to back that assertion with some evidence. An

example of solid proof that Busia’s government approved of and

celebrated the anniversary of a coup would be a recorded speech


of Busia or any prominent member of his government endorsing the

celebration of a coup’s anniversary.

Another example of proof that Busia’s government endorsed

the celebration of the anniversary of a coup would be a written

statement from Busia or any member of his government in support

of coup d’etats and the celebration of their anniversaries.

Therefore, the original judgment makes more legal sense since the

judge stated that Busia approved of the celebration of a coup and

then the judge proceeded to read out a lengthy quotation,

praising coups, which he attributed to Busia. In this respect,

the altered judgment does not make legal sense and it does not

follow a decipherable path of legal reasoning.

A random statement of some newspaper editor, praising coup

d’etats and the celebration of the anniversary of a coup d’etat

would in no way prove that Busia or his government endorsed coup

d’etats. Since quoting a newspaper editor would have no purpose

in proving the assertion made that Busia supported a coup, it

would be prolix, superfluous and serve no purpose, to quote the

statement of some editor at-length.


Secondly, in his altered judgment, Justice Abban states:

"The Daily Graphic of Tuesday 24th February 1970 No. 6033, carried the speech of Dr.

Busia on that celebration. I will however quote a few extracts from the 'Graphic

View' that day”.

However, nowhere in the altered judgment does Justice Abban

quote even a sentence from the speech that he claims Dr. Busia

made although it is a fact that the Daily Graphic of that day

published the full speech of Dr. Busia. That is curious indeed as

one would wonder why the judge mentioned Dr. Busia’s name at all

and indicated that Dr. Busia made a speech which was ‘carried’ in

the newspaper if the judge had no intention whatsoever to quote

any portion of Busia’s statement.

In other words, if Justice Abban had originally intended to

quote only the “Graphic View”, in order to prove that citizens of

that day (including newspaper editors) supported coup d’etats,

then it served no purpose for him to specifically mention that

Dr. Busia made a speech since he never quoted any part of that



The other indication that the judgment Justice Abban finally

submitted was altered is the fact that his language was stilted

and unnatural. Justice Amua-Sekyi pointed this out when he held

in the Mensa-Bonsu case thus

I reject as wholly false the suggestion that the judge said he was quoting

someone or something called "Graphic View." That term means nothing to

us today. Anyone who wanted to quote the editorial opinion of the paper

would refer to it as such and not "Graphic View" which was apparently the

byline used in those days.65

Based on the above analysis of the altered text, one

realizes that some tell-tale signs of judicial corruption in the

judicial text include the use of superfluous, prolix and

duplicitous words and sentences, sentences which do not line up

or make sense as well as the use of stilted language. It must be

noted that the existence of only one or even a few or these clues

in the judicial text is not necessarily conclusive evidence of

judicial corruption. However, where a judicial text contains

several of these “tell-tale signs”, this could be an indication

that judicial corruption has occurred.65 Per Justice Amua-Sekyi, Republic v. Mensa-Bonsu, page 422


Examination of actions of the judge, lawyers and other court officials After Justice Abban read his judgment in the 31st December

case, the actions he took and the actions other persons such as

certain lawyers and court officials involved in the case took

indicate that judicial corruption took place. This is in line

with the author’s assertion that by examining the actions of a

judge, outside the courtroom, with regards to a case that

appeared before him, it is possible to detect judicial


Failure or Inability to speak up and defend oneself: From

the facts of the Mensa-Bonsu case, after Mensa-Bonsu discovered

that Busia had never made the statement attributed to him, he

wrote to Justice Abban to inform him. However, Justice Abban

never personally responded to the letter or replied the

accusations. Instead, he caused the court registrar to write a

letter proclaiming that Justice Abban had never attributed the

statement in question to Busia but rather to “Graphic View”.

One would think that the normal thing a person who is

accused of an offence but is confident of his innocence would do

is to respond to those allegations. It is therefore peculiar that


Justice Abban himself never responded to the allegations but

rather sat back to let other people, such as the court registrar,

speak up for him. Even when the contempt case came up for trial

in the Supreme Court, Justice Abban never swore to any affidavit

nor did he seek to give sworn testimony, in the witness box, in

support of the fact that he never altered his judgment.

All these are signs of judicial corruption. A judge who has

engaged in judicial corruption would prefer for other people to

speak up for him when he is found out. This is because he might

find it difficult to justify his own actions since he knows he is

guilty of corruption and so it may be easier for him to delegate

the responsibility of defending his actions to other people.

Making several complaints and then withdrawing them: When

Mensa-Bonsu accused Justice Abban of being dishonest and

essentially corrupt, Justice Abban appears to have issued

complaints to several quarters but he never followed through with

any of them. His first recourse was to report Mensa-Bonsu to the

National Media Commission. He withdrew this complaint and

proceeded next to the police station. After the police took


statements from Mensa-Bonsu, Justice Abban appears to have

discontinued this line of action and then caused the Attorney-

General to sue Mensa-Bonsu for contempt.

It is likely that Justice Abban issued all these complaints

with the aim of intimidating Mensa-Bonsu so that he would recant

his accusation or simply stop speaking up. However, Justice Abban

could not follow through with the complaints because he probably

realized that should an independent body conduct an enquiry into

his own behavior, it would realize that he had altered his

judgment and was being dishonest.

That is precisely how a judge involved in judicial

corruption behaves when he is found out. He may issue several

threats against his accusers and report them to different bodies

but fail to follow through since he knows that an investigation

would reveal his corrupt deeds.

Physical Traces of Corruption: From the facts of the case, a

forensic expert who was hired by Mensa-Bonsu’s counsel discovered

physical traces that Justice Abban had altered his decision.

During the contempt case, the Attorney-General tendered, as


evidence, a new decision that he claimed was Justice Abban’s

original judgment but in reality, this judgment was the altered

decision. It was essentially the same decision as the original

judgment just that the original page 28 attributing the quotation

to Busia had been ripped out and a new page 28 attributing the

quotation to Graphic View had been typed and inserted.

The forensic expert discovered that the typeface of page 28,

of the judgment which the Attorney-General tendered in evidence,

was different from the typeface used for the rest of the other

pages constituting that same judgment which the Attorney-General

tendered. However, there was no such discrepancy in typeface of

the original judgment that Mensa-Bonsu obtained (which he

tendered in court as evidence). In the original judgment which

Mensa-Bonsu submitted, one typeface was used for all the pages

throughout the judgment. This indicated then that the judge had

gotten someone to retype page 28 of his judgment and then

inserted it. It must be noted that at the time this matter was

decided, typewriters were being used in court rather than

computers and thus, different typewriters produced different

typefaces. That is why the difference in typeface indicated that51

the typewriter used to type the new page 28 was not the same

typewriter used to type the rest of the judgment.

Additionally, as stated above, Justice Amua-Sekyi stated

that he had been in court on the day the judgment was read and he

clearly heard the judge erroneously attributing the statement to

Busia. He was not the only one to make such a claim. In Mensa-

Bonsu’s defence, several lawyers who had been in court on that

day swore affidavits in support of the fact that they heard the

judge erroneously attributing the statement to Busia.

In contrast, even Justice Abban himself was unable to swear

an affidavit in support of his position. The Chief State attorney

was in court when Justice Abban delivered his judgment and she

swore an affidavit in the judge’s support. However, she claimed

in her affidavit that she could not recollect to whom the judge

had attributed the statement in question.

Such palpable physical evidence of judicial corruption such

as a forensic report and testimony of witnesses who observed the

corrupt act are very valuable in detecting and proving

corruption. This is why litigants in matters and their counsel


must make careful records of whatever occurs in court as this

would make it easier for them to detect judicial corruption

whenever it occurs. Additionally, courts should be encouraged to

record proceedings with video cameras so that whenever there is a

dispute as to what actually happened in court, it can be decided

with the video evidence.

Silence of key witneses: In this matter, Mensa-Bonsu

obtained the original judgment from the Deputy Judicial

Secretary. Later, the Deputy Judicial Secretary swore an

affidavit that he was the one who secured the original judgment

for Mensa-Bonsu and that he obtained the said judgment from the

court registrar.

It is important to indicate here that the court registrar

who was at post at the time that Justice Abban read his judgment

in the 31st December case was different from the court registrar

who was at post when the Mensa-Bonsu case was decided. However,

the Attorney-General made no effort to call the Deputy Judicial

Secretary or the former court registrar to testify. Rather, the


Attorney General sought to have the Deputy Judicial Secretary’s

affidavit excluded but failed to do so.

A corrupt judge may sometimes be opposed to allowing key

witnesses to testify when they observed his corrupt acts or he

may even seek to suppress negative evidence against himself.

Furthermore, where several key witnesses or several persons who

witnessed the actions of a judge and can declare whether or not

the judge was corrupt are dead silent on the issue and even

unwilling to testify, this points towards judicial corruption. If

the judge did not commit any offence, then the witnesses may have

been bold in speaking on his behalf.

However, where the key witnesses are silent, it could be

that they are afraid of the repercussions they may face if they

tell the truth about the judge’s corruption and so they may

prefer to remain silent or not comment on the matter. Where the

key witnesses are judges themselves, they may remain silent out

of a desire to shield their brother on the bench.

In this case, some of the judges who sat on the Mensah-

Bonsu case also sat on the 31st December case and thus heard


Justice Abban attribute the statement to Busia but they chose to

remain silent on the matter.

ConclusionCorruption of any sort, including judicial corruption may be

most difficult to determine because it is a deed that involves an

element of dishonesty. Most dishonest acts either take place in

secret or they are concealed, making it highly difficult to

detect and even more difficult to prove.

Nevertheless, it is hoped that these signs that have been

identified would help litigants in a matter, lawyers, judges,

civil society and other stakeholders to determine when judicial

corruption occurs in order to take measures to remedy it.

As explained above, corruption can have very negative

effects on the society and as such there is the need to encourage

transparency, reduce monopoly, regulate judicial discretion,

increase judicial accountability and if possible, establish

independent bodies that can monitor judicial corruption with the

aim of reducing acts of judicial corruption.


We will do well to always remember this statement made by

Frank Serpico, the New York police officer who testified before

the Knapp Commission about systemic corruption in the New York

Police Department:

The fight for justice against corruption is never easy. It never has been and never

will be. It exacts a toll on our self, our families, our friends, and especially our

children. In the end, I believe, as in my case, the price we pay is well worth

holding on to our dignity.66

66 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/nyregion/24serpico.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0, last viewed 5/13/ 2013 at 4:48 pm and http://thinkexist.com/quotes/frank_serpico/ last viewed 5/13/2013 at 5pm




The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana


Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32)


New Patriotic Party v. Attorney-General [1993-94] 2 GLR


Republic v. Mensa-Bonsu [1995-96] 1 GLR 377


Edgardo Buscaglia, Judicial Corruption in Developing Countries: Its

Causes and Economic Consequences, 1999, Stanford University


R.S. Rattray, Ashanti Law and Constitution,1969, Negro

Universities Press

Roger S. Gocking, The History of Ghana, 2005, Greenwood


John McLaren, Dewigged, Bothered and Bewildered: British Colonial

Judges on Trial, 1800-1900, 2011, Osgoode Society for

Canadian Legal History

Robert Woode, Third World to First World- by One Touch,

2011, Trafford Publishing


Journals, Magazines and Newspaper Publications

Robert Klitgaard, International Co-operation against Corruption,

Finance & Development Magazine, March 1998 edition,

Volume 35 No. 1

Hein Online- Paper presented by Chief Justice Mario

F.B. Mangaze at a Commonwealth Colloquium on “Combating

Corruption Within the Judiciary” held from June 25-27 2002 in

Limassol, Cyprus and consequently published in


George Sarpong, The Murky Truth, World Press Review April

1, 2004 edition

World Wide Web

All Africa Magazine’s website http://allafrica.com

Joy FM’s website http://www.myjonline.com

The Chronicle Newspaper’s website


Citi FM’s website http://www.citifmonline.com

Ghana Broadcasting Company’s websitehttp://gbcghana.com

World Bank website http://www.worldbank.org

Transparency International website


Judicial Service of Ghana website


Ghana Web websitehttp://www.ghanaweb.com


New York Times website http://www.nytimes.com

Seychelles Weekly website


Think Exist website http://thinkexist.com

World Press website http://www.worldpress.org