Supreme Court nominee disagrees with capping Supreme Court justices at 19

Supreme Court nominee Anthony Forson Jnr. says Ghana should not place a fixed cap on the number of justices at the Supreme Court unless the court’s jurisdiction is first reduced.

Appearing before Parliament’s Appointments Committee on Thursday, August 27, 2026, Mr Forson argued that the current workload of the apex court makes a cap impractical.

He said the Supreme Court handles a wide range of constitutional and appellate matters, and limiting its membership without addressing that workload could create difficulties for justice delivery.

“Well, I’m one of the advocates of no capping because of my experience and the kind of seminars that I have been to,” he said.

Mr Forson said his position had been shaped by previous discussions on constitutional and judicial reforms.

He recalled a constitutional review engagement in Parliament where Justice Frimpong Manso reportedly warned that the Supreme Court’s broad jurisdiction could make a numerical cap problematic.

“In fact, one of them was in this very chamber where my Lord Justice Frimpong indicated to the committee when we were doing the constitutional review that because of the jurisdictions which have been given to the Supreme Court, which is so wide, capping will bring a problem,” he said.

According to Mr Forson, the debate over the size of the Supreme Court cannot be separated from the kind of cases the court is required to hear.

He said any proposal to cap the number of justices must therefore be considered together with possible reforms to the court’s jurisdiction.

“So unless as a country we decide to reduce the jurisdictions which have been allocated to the Supreme Court, for now there should be no cap,” he said.

His comments come amid renewed discussion over constitutional reforms, including a proposal accepted by government to cap the membership of the Supreme Court at 19 and introduce a fixed tenure for the Chief Justice.

Mr Forson, however, said previous expansions of the Supreme Court were justified by the volume of work before the court.

“Indeed, if you look at the write-ups on the justification for the expansion of the membership of the Supreme Court, it was clear that the current composition was unable to cope with the workload,” he said.

He maintained that, under the current constitutional arrangement, limiting the number of justices could affect the court’s ability to deal with cases efficiently.

“For now, I disagree that there should be a cap,” he added.