The Judicial Service of Ghana has refuted claims made in a recent publication by The Herald Newspaper and other media platforms alleging that the Chief Justice’s decision to transfer judges was intended to frustrate cases, particularly those involving anti-corruption trials.
The publication, titled “Chief Justice Scatters Special Prosecutor’s Anti-Corruption Fight…with Strange Transfer of Judges A Year After Agyebeng Publicly Cried Over Frustration,” claimed that Justice Priscilla Diko Ofori, who presided over the criminal trial of Alex Kwabena Sarfo Kantanka, was transferred just as she was due to deliver judgment in the case.
In a statement released on Monday, December 2, 2024, the Judicial Service described the reports as misleading and outlined the administrative processes governing the transfer of judges to provide clarity on the matter.
The Judicial Service emphasized that the transfer of judges is a standard administrative exercise conducted annually or as necessitated by the circumstances of individual judges or courts.
According to the statement, all transferred judges are required to complete cases they have presided over, especially those nearing judgment, before assuming their new postings.
“To ensure continuity, transferred judges are mandated to submit a Case Completion Plan to the Office of the Chief Justice. This allows a warrant to be issued, authorizing the judge to deliver all outstanding judgments and rulings, as well as to complete trials that are near completion,” the statement explained.
Justice Priscilla Diko Ofori, the judge referenced in the report, has complied with these procedures.
The Judicial Service confirmed that she submitted her Case Completion Plan on November 29, 2024, and has been authorized to deliver all outstanding judgments and rulings in the cases she handled in Kumasi, even after her transfer to Accra.
The Judicial Service revealed that Justice Diko Ofori’s transfer is part of a broader exercise involving over 20 judges at various levels of the judiciary for the 2024 legal year. The service reiterated that such transfers are routine and not designed to disrupt judicial proceedings or frustrate ongoing cases.
The Judicial Service expressed concern over the publication’s claims and urged media houses to verify information before publishing.
“We entreat members of the media to painstakingly cross-check their facts and verify information to ensure factual and balanced reports to the public,” the statement read.
The Judicial Service assured the public that its administrative processes, including the transfer of judges, are implemented to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and ensure the timely delivery of justice.
It also reaffirmed its commitment to transparency and impartiality in the management of cases.
