Paper short abstract:

What happens in a judiciary setting, when it is not pieces of evidence, testimonies and witnesses that are in doubt but the integrity of presiding judges? I show how Ghanaian judges strive in their everyday work to construct an image of judicial integrity in a situation of constant doubt.

Paper long abstract:

Techniques of casting and dispelling doubt are common in court rooms all over the world. However, what happens in a judiciary setting, when it is not pieces of evidence, testimonies and witnesses that are in doubt but the integrity of presiding judges? In Ghana, the expression of "seeing the judge" has become tantamount to bribing a judge, corruption in the administration of justice is seen as ubiquitous, and judgements are often perceived as depending on a litigant's relation to a judge. Therefore, allegations of corruption against judges in general and doubts about judges' impartiality in particular emerge frequently. However, according to judges, such allegations often appear to be based on little fact; yet once on the table, they cannot be dispelled easily. What is more, such allegations seem perfectly plausible to an alerted public, sensitive to little signs of daily corruption- which judges describe as a cultural bias of most members of Ghanaian society. My paper presents the judiciary setting in Ghana from the following perspective: I discuss the judges' self-perception and the image they try to present to others. I show how judges strive in their everyday work to construct an image of judicial integrity in a situation of constant doubt. I conclude that Ghanaian judges see the court users' doubts regarding the legal process as something larger than a mere outcome of structural shortcomings and moral hazard. They explain it as a clash of two epistemic views which has to be countered by their rigorous judicial boundary work.