Supreme Court nominee Anthony Forson Jnr. opposes proposal to cap number of justices at 19

Supreme Court nominee Anthony Forson Jnr. has rejected proposals to place a cap on the number of justices who can serve on Ghana’s apex court, arguing that such a restriction could undermine the efficient administration of justice.

Mr Forson said the Supreme Court’s extensive constitutional jurisdiction and growing workload made a fixed limit impractical, particularly if the range of matters before the court remained unchanged.

Appearing before Parliament’s Appointments Committee on Thursday, August 27, 2026, he said his position was influenced by his experience and participation in discussions on judicial and constitutional reforms.

“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 referred to an earlier constitutional review exercise during which Justice Frimpong Manso, according to him, raised concerns about limiting the size of the Supreme Court in view of the broad jurisdiction assigned to it.

“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.

He argued that any attempt to limit the number of Supreme Court justices should first take into account the court’s constitutional responsibilities and workload.

“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,” Mr Forson said.

His comments come amid ongoing discussions on constitutional reforms, including a government-accepted proposal to limit the membership of the Supreme Court to 19 justices and introduce a fixed tenure for the Chief Justice.

Mr Forson also cited the reasons behind previous increases in the number of Supreme Court justices, noting that the expansion was necessary because the existing composition had struggled to manage the court’s workload.

“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.

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