Clarity needed on appointments to Supreme Court

I followed the ongoing vetting of two nominees appointed to the Supreme Court by the President.

I am not a staff of the judicial Council neither am l a lawyer, but l am just a curious citizen, who wants clarity.

I have been puzzled by the criteria used in the appointment of judges to the Superior Courts in this country. Is it on merit, dedication to duty or by the whims of the President?

If we say the judiciary is independent of the other two arms of government (the Executive and Legislature) then why must appointments to the superior courts be made by the President?

How independent can one arm of government be, if another arm is responsible for appointments in the other arm?

Why should a particular judge, who has been marking time at the Court of Appeal for over 15 years be passed in the appointment to the Supreme Court for his juniors on the bench to be promoted over him or her?

This particular judge is the longest serving on the Bench. Meanwhile, a member of the Bar who was appointed to the High Court has within four years has been promoted to the Apex Court. What happens to the morale of such a judge, if he is failing to catch the eyes of the appointing authority for all this while?

l think the scale of Justice, with a blind woman holding a weighing scale symbolising that the law is blind and that justice must be done to all manner of people, should be reality check on the way we practice fairness and equity in these appointments in this country.

Many questions beg for answers as far as appointments in the judiciary are conducted.

Mark Kofi Logo (rtd),
Asst.Comm.of Customs, 
Tema.