“A constitution betrayed?” — Kwaku Azar tackles suspended CJ’s public plea for sympathy

In a sharply worded critique delivered to his loyal audience on Facebook — the so-called “Facebook Nation” — US-based Ghanaian legal scholar Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare, popularly known as Kwaku Azar, has lambasted the recently suspended Chief Justice (CJ) over what he calls a “wilful violation” of the 1992 Constitution. His statement comes in the wake of the Chief Justice’s controversial public appeal for sympathy amid ongoing Article 146 removal proceedings.

From his base at the University of Florida, Kwaku Azar issued a sweeping legal analysis that goes far beyond personal opinion — touching at the core of Ghana’s constitutional democracy, judicial independence, and the rule of law.

At the heart of Azar’s concern lies Article 146(8) of the Constitution, which explicitly mandates that all proceedings for the removal of superior court judges be held in camera — away from public view.

By appealing publicly and framing the constitutional inquiry into her conduct as persecution, the Chief Justice, according to Azar, has not just broken protocol. She has broken the Constitution.

“A public statement, whether issued personally or through authorized intermediaries, on a matter that the Constitution explicitly mandates to be conducted in camera amounts to wilful noncompliance,” he writes.

For Kwaku Azar, this isn’t a case of an emotional outburst or minor misjudgment. It’s a constitutional breach that speaks to a deeper erosion of accountability at the highest levels of the judiciary.

The Scholar’s Stand: Personal, But Principled

Azar discloses — with careful deliberation — that he himself filed a petition in December 2024 seeking the Chief Justice’s removal. That petition was dismissed for failing to meet the prima facie threshold. But he insists his current analysis is driven not by personal grievance but by constitutional fidelity.

“My prior petition does not prejudice this opinion, nor does it preclude me from commenting candidly and objectively on the current constitutional concerns,” he asserts.

This distinction — between citizen and complainant — is a central feature of Azar’s argument. He is not just speaking as a petitioner but as a citizen-scholar defending the Constitution’s supremacy.

A Public Offence, Not Just Misbehaviour

What elevates Kwaku Azar’s critique from legal commentary to potential political thunderclap is his claim that the Chief Justice’s conduct may independently qualify as grounds for removal.

According to him, the public statements violate not only the procedural requirement of confidentiality under Article 146(8), but also the CJ’s own oath of office.

“A wilful and public defiance of Article 146(8) is not only inconsistent with this oath — it is a repudiation of it.”

Azar’s argument deepens: Even if this breach was not cited in the original petition for removal, the committee investigating her conduct is empowered to consider new acts of misconduct that arise during proceedings — especially if such acts subvert the process itself.

This approach, he explains, is constitutionally anchored in Articles 146(3)–(5) and finds a chilling precedent in Article 69, which allows for a President’s removal for violating their constitutional oath.

Equal Before the Law — No Exceptions

Azar’s sharpest critique may be reserved for the implication that the CJ, by virtue of her position, may be treated with more leniency.

He notes that Article 1(2) makes the Constitution the supreme law, and that no one — not even the Chief Justice — has the liberty to disobey its commands.

“All persons are bound by Supreme Court orders and constitutional commands. It follows, a fortiori, that the Chief Justice cannot claim a privileged exemption.”

His analogy is crystal clear: if a President can be removed for wilfully violating the Constitution, so too can the Chief Justice. To argue otherwise would be to abandon the principle of constitutional equality.

Persecution or Accountability?

Azar swiftly dismisses any suggestion that the CJ is a victim of political or judicial persecution.

“The narrative that the Supreme Court is ‘out to get’ the Chief Justice is constitutionally irrelevant,” he says. “Disagreement does not confer a license to flout constitutional requirements.”

He urges all Ghanaians to resist the politicization of the process and focus instead on preserving the sanctity of judicial independence.

A Moment for National Reflection

In the closing passages of his post — signed off from Singapore with the customary “Da Yie” — Azar widens the lens.

He warns that the CJ’s public appeal for sympathy, in direct defiance of the Constitution’s confidentiality mandate, sets a dangerous precedent.

“If the Chief Justice is permitted to violate Article 146(8), we must ask: are constitutional provisions still binding?”

This, he concludes, is no longer about a judge or a case. It is a test of Ghana’s resolve to live under the rule of law.

“We either uphold constitutionalism or we embrace impunity. We cannot do both.”

The Final Word

As Ghana navigates the delicate tension between judicial independence, public trust, and constitutional accountability, Kwaku Azar’s intervention serves not only as a legal wake-up call but as a moral reckoning.

His is not the voice of the opposition, nor of the bench — but of a vigilant citizen who believes that fidelity to the Constitution must be unwavering, especially when the stakes are highest.

Whether or not the Chief Justice’s actions will count as a constitutional offence or grounds for removal will be left to the Article 146 committee.

But in the court of public conscience, Kwaku Azar has made his case — and it resounds.

“Yɛde post no bɛto hɔ. Yɛnyɛ comprehension consultants.”

No need for interpretation — his message is clear.