REPUBLIC v. OWUSU-ADDO; EX PARTE AGYEMANG

EXTRACTS FROM JUDGMENT:

“Official duties apart a public officer and for that matter a judicial officer in my opinion is not obliged to be socially friendly with other members of the public or like profession. Like any other citizen even the judicial officer has a right to associate with whom he chooses. If as the respondent’s affidavit avers the imputation of corruption was made by counsel for the applicant about her to the senior judge and as alleged was unfounded, it will, in my view, be sheer hypocrisy to expect the respondent to encumber the applicant’s counsel with smiles socially. The allegation of bias is not made out.”

OBITER: “While every counsel is under a duty to advance the cause of his client as an advocate, with all his powers, it is I think, an obligation of counsel the better to foster that cause to maintain a professional detachment. Over enthusiasm in a client’s cause is likely to lead to a state where counsel’s personal feelings are propagated in the client. The public confidence in the administration of justice in the courts is likely to suffer thereby. In cases where the judicial officer has strong personal feelings of hostility towards a party in proceedings a real likelihood of bias may not be difficult to establish. In his book Judicial Review of Administration Action (2nd ed.) S.A. de Smith at p.247 refers to a Canadian case where a magistrate was held disqualified from hearing a charge against a person with whom he had recently come to blows. The evidence must be compelling to say that personal hostility between counsel and the judicial officer should disqualify the judicial officer on grounds of legal bias. A suspicion of bias is not enough nor do I think it right that any flimsiest pretext should suffice.”