Adjudicating electoral disputes or judicialising politics? The Supreme Court of Ghana and the disputed 2012 presidential election in perspective

Abstract

ABSTRACT The constitutional role of Supreme Courts to adjudicate disputed electoral outcomes is well-accepted within contemporary democracies. How a Supreme Court’s judicial reasoning is portrayed in the popular press will impact on citizens’ understanding of and commitment to democratic processes. In the protracted litigation in the aftermath of Ghana’s disputed 2012 election, its Supreme Court found its judgements and management of proceedings represented as partial, in terms of an unelected body determining political outcomes. This article explores two key questions: what was the nature of the coverage of the Court’s reasoning, and to what extent did this coverage fortify or threaten the legitimacy of the Supreme Court within the political system? It concludes that the specialist politics and law journalists failed to demystify the constitutional reasoning of the Court in such a way that ordinary citizens were able to gain an understanding of the judicial reasoning being applied. There is, the authors believe, some value in examining this issue despite the passage of time since the delivery of the court’s verdict.