The case of Republic v Nana Asante Ampong presents an instructive example of a recurring tension in Ghanaian courts — the manner in which judicial intervention can disrupt the orderly presentation of counsel's submissions. This piece uses the case as a vehicle to examine broader concerns about the conduct of advocacy before the courts and the appropriate limits of judicial involvement during oral argument.
The title of this piece draws on the ancient Latin maxim quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus — "sometimes even the good Homer nods." It is attributed to the Roman poet Horace, who used it to observe that even the greatest of craftsmen are capable of lapses. Applied to the judiciary, it is not a criticism but an acknowledgment that courts — like all human institutions — are fallible, and that this fallibility becomes especially consequential when it affects the administration of justice.
The Bench-Bar Relationship
The relationship between the bench and the bar is one of the most delicate and consequential in any legal system. It is built on mutual respect — the bench respecting the role of counsel as an officer of the court charged with presenting a client's case, and the bar respecting the authority and dignity of the court. When this balance is disrupted, the administration of justice suffers.
Advocacy is a skilled art. It involves not only knowledge of the law but the ability to marshal facts, construct arguments, and present them in a coherent and persuasive manner. Counsel who appears before a court has usually spent considerable time preparing. Interruptions — however well-intentioned — can disrupt the flow of argument, cause counsel to lose the thread of a submission, and ultimately prejudice the client's case.
The bench and the bar are partners in the administration of justice. The strength of that partnership depends on mutual respect — demonstrated not in grand declarations but in the everyday conduct of advocacy and adjudication.
The Case at Bar
In Republic v Nana Asante Ampong Ex parte Abenkyim Stool & 2 Others, the court's conduct during advocacy raised concerns about the extent to which judicial questioning, however intellectually engaged, may cross the line from helpful engagement to disruptive intervention. The case illustrates a pattern that practitioners across Ghana have observed with increasing frequency.
It is not the purpose of this piece to relitigate the merits of the case. Rather, it is to use the circumstances as a basis for reflection on the norms that should govern judicial conduct during oral submissions — norms that are essential to ensuring that advocacy remains a meaningful part of the legal process.
The Standard of Judicial Conduct
A judge who intervenes during oral submissions should do so in a manner that assists rather than hinders the administration of justice. Questions from the bench are a legitimate and often valuable part of the judicial process — they allow the court to test arguments, identify weaknesses, and explore matters that may not be fully addressed in written submissions.
However, there is a difference between judicial engagement and judicial interruption. A court that prevents counsel from completing a submission, that interrupts before an argument is fully developed, or that appears to have reached a conclusion before all submissions are heard, risks both the appearance and the reality of unfairness.
Conclusion
The case of Republic v Nana Asante Ampong is a reminder that the highest standards of judicial conduct are not merely aspirational — they are essential to the legitimacy of the court and the confidence of the public in the legal system. Even Homer nods. The question is not whether lapses occur, but how the system responds when they do.
The bench and the bar are partners in the administration of justice. The strength of that partnership depends on mutual respect, and that mutual respect is demonstrated not in grand declarations but in the everyday conduct of advocacy and adjudication.