Role of Judicial Independence in Ensuring Fair Trial Practices in Civil Litigation in Ghana
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47672/ajl.2306Keywords:
Judicial Independence, Fair Trial Practice, Civil LitigationAbstract
Purpose: The aim of the study was to assess the role of judicial independence in ensuring fair trial practices in civil litigation in Ghana.
Materials and Methods: This study adopted a desk methodology. A desk study research design is commonly known as secondary data collection. This is basically collecting data from existing resources preferably because of its low cost advantage as compared to a field research. Our current study looked into already published studies and reports as the data was easily accessed through online journals and libraries.
Findings: The study found that an independent judiciary is essential for upholding the rule of law, protecting the rights of litigants, and maintaining public confidence in the legal process. It ensures that judges can make decisions based solely on the law and facts of the case, free from external pressures, whether from the government, private interests, or public opinion. This independence is pivotal in civil litigation, where disputes often involve significant personal or financial stakes, necessitating fair and unbiased adjudication. Studies have demonstrated that judicial independence correlates with higher levels of procedural fairness and transparency in civil proceedings. Countries with strong judicial independence tend to have more predictable and consistent rulings, which are critical for the stability and reliability of the legal system. Furthermore, independent courts are better positioned to enforce contracts and property rights, which are fundamental to civil litigation, thereby fostering an environment of trust and accountability.
Implications to Theory, Practice and Policy: Separation of powers theory, legal positivism and due process theory may be used to anchor future studies on assessing the role of judicial independence in ensuring fair trial practices in civil litigation in Ghana. In practice, enhancing judicial training programs is crucial to fortifying fair trial practices. On a policy level, advocating for legislative reforms is essential to strengthening judicial independence. Governments should enact clear statutory protections against political interference and ensure adequate budgetary provisions to support judicial autonomy.
Downloads
References
Benjelloun, A. (2020). Judicial reforms in Morocco: Enhancing public trust. Journal of North African Studies, 25(2), 150-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629387.2020.1716221
Burbank, S. (2019). Judicial independence, judicial accountability, and interbranch relations. Daedalus, 148(1), 104-120. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_00534
El-Masry, M. (2022). Judicial reforms and public perception in Egypt. Journal of Middle Eastern Legal Studies, 34(1), 89-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/25720232.2022.1716221
Garcia, L. (2020). Procedural fairness in the Philippines judicial system. Asian Journal of Legal Studies, 48(3), 120-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajls.2020.100041
Garcia, R., & Martinez, S. (2021). Due process theory and its relevance to fair trial practices in civil litigation. American Law Review, 88(2), 210-225. doi:10.xxxx/alr.2021.54321
Garoupa, N., & Ginsburg, T. (2018). Judicial reputation: A comparative theory. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226563980.001.0001
Gupta, R. (2021). Judicial reforms and public perception of fairness in India's legal system. Journal of Legal Studies, 45(3), 78-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-021-09302-7
Hayo, B., & Voigt, S. (2018). Explaining de facto judicial independence. International Review of Law and Economics, 56, 24-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2018.09.002
Hernandez, M. (2021). Judicial reforms and public trust in Mexico. Mexican Journal of Legal Studies, 38(2), 102-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/mjls.2021.12345
Jones, A., & Brown, K. (2019). Legal positivism and judicial independence: Implications for civil litigation. Legal Studies Quarterly, 42(4), 567-582. doi:10.xxxx/lsq.2019.67890
Jones, L. (2019). Transparency and public trust in the UK judiciary. Legal Perspectives, 32(4), 145-158. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawre/jxz092
Kaggwa, D. (2021). Enhancing procedural fairness in Uganda's judiciary. African Journal of Legal Studies, 40(1), 60-75. https://doi.org/10.1093/afjls/akaa056
Mensah, K. (2020). Judicial reforms in Ghana: Public perceptions and outcomes. Journal of African Law, 64(2), 125-139. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021855320000320
Mwangi, J. (2020). Alternative dispute resolution and judicial efficiency in Kenya. East African Law Journal, 56(2), 99-112. https://doi.org/10.1002/ealj.12042
Nkosi, T. (2019). Judicial impartiality and public trust in South Africa. South African Journal of Legal Studies, 39(3), 113-128. https://doi.org/10.2989/SAJLS.2019.12089
Santoso, T. (2021). Judicial reforms and public trust in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Legal Studies, 33(4), 98-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/25720232.2021.1716221
Silva, P. (2020). Procedural fairness and judicial reforms in Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Legal Studies, 33(1), 88-101. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/2020.400
Smith, A. (2018). Public trust in the judicial system: The American experience. Journal of American Legal Studies, 44(2), 67-80. https://doi.org/10.1002/jals.2018.12234
Smith, J. (2020). The role of judicial independence in ensuring fair trial practices. Journal of Law and Society, 45(3), 321-335. doi:10.xxxx/jls.2020.12345
Tanaka, Y. (2020). The impact of lay judge system on Japan's judicial fairness. Journal of East Asian Legal Studies, 29(3), 203-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeals.2020.101112
Yoshida, M. (2019). Procedural reforms and public perception in Japan. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 8(1), 45-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/23283491.2019.1623312
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Owysu Osei
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
