In a recent article, he described the GBA’s support as “dangerous for our Constitution, democracy, and the rule of law.”
He cautioned that unqualified loyalty to the Chief Justice’s administrative decisions risks undermining the judicial system’s independence.
“The unbridled support of anything and everything the Chief Justice says or does…borders on sycophancy,” Mr Amidu warned.
He further stated that citizens should expect judicial decisions that are both independent and transparent.
Mr Amidu’s critique extended to the relationship between the judiciary and national security, questioning whether the Chief Justice had acted on independent judgment or based on “instructions… from the National Security Council.”
He emphasized the need for greater transparency in decisions affecting public access to justice, especially in the wake of electoral season tensions.
Amidu questions CJ’s closure of Upper East courts
The former Attorney General openly criticized the Chief Justice’s administrative decision to close courts in Bawku and surrounding areas.
He described as “unprecedented” and detrimental to citizens’ rights the decision to close courts including the regional capital, Bolgatanga.
The Chief Justice, according to a memorandum issued by the Judicial Secretary, justified the closures as a safety measure due to escalating security concerns.
However, Mr Amidu deemed the closure rationale as “naïve,” pointing out that Bolgatanga has historically remained unaffected by Bawku’s sporadic violence.
He stated that “throughout the Bawku conflict… the regional capital has never been… in the conflict area.”
The former AG emphasized the potential legal ramifications of suspending court functions just weeks before the national elections, arguing it infringes upon citizens’ access to justice and could disrupt the judicial review of election-related issues.
“We the People demand Parliamentary oversight of the administrative decision…to close the High Court in Bolgatanga and its environs,” he stated.
Mr Amidu also expressed concern that the closure decision lacked sufficient input from local legal stakeholders, questioning the Chief Justice’s consultations.
