A sentencing memorandum from Supreme Court Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, the nominee for Chief Justice, has revealed that fears for his family’s safety were a significant factor in his decision to impose a 70-year prison term on notorious criminal Ataa Ayi.

The case, which has drawn widespread public attention, offers a rare glimpse into the personal security considerations that can influence high-stakes judicial rulings.

In his statement, Justice Baffoe-Bonnie explicitly acknowledged that the potential threat of harm to his family contributed to the sentencing decision.

The lengthy 70-year sentence has since ignited a broader public and legal debate, raising critical questions about the intersection of judicial discretion, personal risk assessment, and the principles of impartial justice.

Legal analysts and civil society groups are now examining the implications of such reasoning for the integrity and perceived objectivity of Ghana's judicial system.

The revelation has prompted discussions on the protections afforded to judges and their families, and whether such personal security concerns should play a role in the sentencing process.

Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s comments are expected to feature prominently in the ongoing discourse surrounding his nomination for the position of Chief Justice, as stakeholders assess the balance between a judge’s right to safety and the unwavering application of judicial principles.