Atta Ayi’s 70-Year Sentence Was Selfish – NPP Slams Baffoe-Bonnie

Chief Justice nominee Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie has faced sharp criticism after defending the 70-year prison sentence he gave notorious armed robber Ataa Ayi, with NPP officials Alhaji Kamal-Deen Abdulai and John Boadu questioning whether his reasoning upheld judicial fairness.

Deputy National Communications Director of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Alhaji Kamal-Deen Abdulai, criticised the nominee’s reasoning during an interview on Channel One TV’s Breakfast Daily on Tuesday, November 11, 2025.

“I chanced on something when watching the vetting process, and I was appalled. A judge who is supposed to be the head of affairs of the judicial system of our country said he had to give somebody 70 years because he was afraid to die when he came out, he would attack him and his family. I was surprised. That comment was very low,” Alhaji Kamal-Deen said.

He added that such reasoning undermines the integrity of the judiciary and contradicts the very oath judges take to administer justice fairly and without fear or favour.

“Your own judicial oath tells you to ensure that you work within the tenets of the law, and you tell me that for fear you gave somebody 70 years because you didn’t want to give 30 years for him to come and attack you? The ratio he gave was flat,” Alhaji Kamal-Deen said.

Similarly, John Boadu, former General Secretary of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), now contesting for the party’s position of National Chairman, speaking on Asempa the same day, echoed these concerns.

He painted a scenario where personal fear could influence future judgments, putting ordinary citizens at a disadvantage.

“Look at what a whole Chief Justice nominee said, that someone has committed a crime and you will want to sentence him. You say you wanted to give him 30 years’ imprisonment, and you claimed the 30 years was not enough because you fear for your life after his release, so you gave him 70 years. Where do we say this? There is nowhere that this statement coming from someone who aspires to be Chief Justice will be deemed appropriate.

So if next time you should pass a judgment on a case, you will be subjective about it to benefit you, and favour you. If this reason was not his strong point, he wouldn’t have said it. At your level and then you say this, then where is the justice? How can we get justice under you?” John Boadu questioned.

Prior to this, Justice Baffoe-Bonnie defended his decision during his vetting before Parliament’s Appointments Committee on November 10, 2025. He recalled the case from his “youthful days” as a judge and argued that the sentence was necessary to protect the public and prevent violent crime.

According to him, he feared that if Ataa Ayi was sentenced to only 30 years, the criminal might target him and his family after release. He explained that the longer sentence was meant to ensure that the notorious criminal would not be a threat.

“In my youthful days, I gave him, Atta Ayi, 70 years. And what I told myself was that if Atta Ayi was given 30 years and he comes back, my family would be the first he would attack. By the time he comes back after 70 years, I will be dead and gone,” Justice Baffoe-Bonnie said, adding the remark lightly, which prompted laughter from the audience.

Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s explanation has ignited debate online. Some netizens have criticised the comment as “selfish,” claiming it prioritised personal safety over legal principles. Others defended the judge, arguing that given the extreme danger Ataa Ayi posed, the sentence was justified.

Ataa Ayi, also known as Ayi Ayeetey, was once branded Ghana’s most notorious armed robber. Operating in Accra and surrounding areas in the late 1990s and early 2000s, he led a gang that robbed victims at gunpoint, escaping with vehicles, cash, jewellery, and other valuables. His criminal activities also involved shooting individuals who resisted his attacks.

After his arrest, Ataa Ayi was convicted on multiple counts of armed robbery and sentenced to prison. Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s explanation for the 70-year term has now become a point of contention, raising questions about judicial impartiality and fairness.