Law students at the University of Cape Coast Faculty of Law are reporting on legal developments in Ghana for JURIST. 

The late April suspension of the chief justice of Ghana, Getrude Sackey Torkornoo, has sparked a raft of sentiments and constitutional concerns across the Ghanaian populace, ranging from concerned citizens to political parties, independent statutory bodies, and renowned jurists in Ghana.

This unprecedented event was anchored on article 146 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which lays down the process for the removal of justices of the superior courts. The earliest development of this sensitive issue dates back to April 28, when Ghana’s president, His Excellency John Dramani Mahama, received three petitions seeking the removal of the Chief Justice. In compliance with article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution, the matter was referred to the Council of State, which established a prima facie case. In exercising the power conferred on the president by article 146(7) of the 1992 Constitution, the president suspended the chief justice and accordingly established a committee to look into the merits of the case. This singular act of the president is the focal point of the concerns of the Ghanaian populace.

In an unfolding sequence of events, two citizens filed a writ each at the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the removal of the Chief Justice. Prominent among them is Ghanaian politician Vincent Ekow, who was represented by the former Attorney General, Godfred Dame. He raised concerns about Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, JSC (Justice of the Supreme Court), who presided over the panel as the acting chief justice, claiming that he had an interest in the case. This claim was unanimously dismissed by the court and has resulted in the withdrawal of the injunction application by the former Attorney General.

Mrs. Sophia Akuffo, a retired justice of the Supreme Court also expressed her concern about the process for the removal of the Chief Justice. She claimed that the process was unfair and needed review in order to make the process more stringent. In a meeting with the constitutional review committee, she intimated that there ought to be a right to appeal against a Chief Justice found guilty of misconduct, and also the setting of the committee for the removal of the chief justice ought to be done by an independent body and not the president.

This was followed by a protest earlier this week which was organised by the Vincent Ekow’s New Patriotic Party (NPP), one of the two most dominant political parties in Ghana, now in opposition. They gathered in a park in Accra near the Supreme Court, marching to the Jubilee House, the seat of the president, seeking the reinstatement of the Chief Justice.

These agitations were climaxed by somewhat controversial allegations by the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), Ghana’s professional association of lawyers. In their mid-year conference held on April 26, the GBA passed a resolution demanding that the president release the full decision of the prima facie determination for purposes of transparency. They argued that the president, not being a judicial officer, acted outside the scope of his constitutional powers in suspending the Chief Justice without publishing either a constitutional or statutory instrument or any regulation which would lawfully govern the suspension. This claim is however not supported by article 146(10) of the 1992 Constitution, which conferred the power on the President. This stance of the GBA has been criticised by the Lawyers in Search of Democracy (LINSOD), who described it as unmeritorious, as the president had acted within the full remits of the law. “We find the Bar Association’s position not only strange but also absurd, as it directly contradicts the well-established procedures affirmed in the Agyei Twum case. It is demeaning and deeply offensive to the fundamental principles of democracy,” the group stated.

In my opinion, the matter at hand is purely a constitutional issue and as such the attention of the entire country should be directed towards ensuring that the due process of law is followed rather than circumventing procedures which are shrouded in personal interests with the potential of leaving a bad precedent for posterity. The worst thing that could happen to our constitutional dispensation at this point in time is to raise ingenuine concerns about crystal-clear constitutional provisions with the intent of propelling the interest of an individual or crop of persons. This is a call to the legal actors to uphold the oath they took to uphold the rule of law at all times. This is better captured in the Latin maxim, sub constitutione sola, galea in qua non fallimur, which  translates to “Under the constitution alone, the helmet in which we are not deceived.”