Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Judges and Journalists and the Spaces In Between
- 1 Judicial Communication: (Re)Constructing Legitimacy in Argentina
- 2 Communication beyond the Judgments: The Australian High Court, Speaking for Itself, but Not Tweeting
- 3 Uncommon Transparency: The Supreme Court, Media Relations, and Public Opinion in Brazil
- 4 The “Uncomfortable Embrace”: The Supreme Court and the Media in Canada
- 5 Germany: The Federal Constitutional Court and the Media
- 6 The Supreme Court and Media in Ghana's Fourth Republic: An Analysis of Rulings and Interactions between Two Estates of the Realm
- 7 The Puzzle of Judicial Communication in Indonesia: The Media, the Court, and the Chief Justice
- 8 Carping, Criticizing, and Circumventing: Judges, the Supreme Court, and the Media in Israel
- 9 Judicial Communication in South Korea: Moving toward a More Open System?
- 10 Changing the Channel: Broadcasting Deliberations in the Mexican Supreme Court
- 11 Norway: Managed Openness and Transparency
- 12 Judicial Institutional Change and Court Communication Innovations: The Case of the UK Supreme Court
- 13 Symbiosis: The US Supreme Court and the Journalists Who Cover It
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
6 - The Supreme Court and Media in Ghana's Fourth Republic: An Analysis of Rulings and Interactions between Two Estates of the Realm
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2017
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Judges and Journalists and the Spaces In Between
- 1 Judicial Communication: (Re)Constructing Legitimacy in Argentina
- 2 Communication beyond the Judgments: The Australian High Court, Speaking for Itself, but Not Tweeting
- 3 Uncommon Transparency: The Supreme Court, Media Relations, and Public Opinion in Brazil
- 4 The “Uncomfortable Embrace”: The Supreme Court and the Media in Canada
- 5 Germany: The Federal Constitutional Court and the Media
- 6 The Supreme Court and Media in Ghana's Fourth Republic: An Analysis of Rulings and Interactions between Two Estates of the Realm
- 7 The Puzzle of Judicial Communication in Indonesia: The Media, the Court, and the Chief Justice
- 8 Carping, Criticizing, and Circumventing: Judges, the Supreme Court, and the Media in Israel
- 9 Judicial Communication in South Korea: Moving toward a More Open System?
- 10 Changing the Channel: Broadcasting Deliberations in the Mexican Supreme Court
- 11 Norway: Managed Openness and Transparency
- 12 Judicial Institutional Change and Court Communication Innovations: The Case of the UK Supreme Court
- 13 Symbiosis: The US Supreme Court and the Journalists Who Cover It
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
INTRODUCTION
To provide a critical analysis of the relationship between the Supreme Court and the media in Ghana, it is vital to explore how the structural and institutional contexts within which they are embedded enable or constrain interaction and, hence, define the operational distance between these very important estates of the realm. In the immediately ensuing section, the chapter focuses on the organization of the Court, its remit, and the extent of its independence vis-à-vis other organs of state. This is followed by an analysis of the mechanics and contexts of communication flow and interaction between the two institutions.
STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT
Ghana's judiciary is made up of the superior and lower courts of judicature. The former are constituted, in descending hierarchical order, by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, and the Regional Tribunals. The latter are comprised of Circuit Courts, District Courts, and such others as may be established by Parliament.
The Supreme Court is headed by the Chief Justice. Per Article 128 of the Constitution, s/he is supported by “not less than nine other Justices” (Government of Ghana 1992). There is, thus, no upper limit on the number of Justices. In the discharge of its judicial duties, the Court is enjoined to empanel not less than five members, except in instances where it is exercising judicial review of its own decisions, in which case not less than seven Justices are supposed to be empaneled.
The Court has exclusive original jurisdiction when it comes to questions that require interpretation of the Constitution and enforcement of its provisions; that challenge the constitutionality or otherwise of enactments; or that raise questions about whether Parliament or any other body or person has exceeded constitutional or legal authority with regard to those enactments (Date-Bah 2015a). The Court also has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the publication or disclosure of any official document should not be allowed for the sake of national security.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Justices and JournalistsThe Global Perspective, pp. 119 - 140Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017