CJ Removal: SC adjourns hearing without fixed date

The Supreme Court (SC) of Ghana has adjourned indefinitely the hearing of a suit challenging the process for the potential removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo from office. The case, filed by Old Tafo MP Vincent Ekow Assafuah, was initially scheduled for Wednesday, April 9, but the court postponed the hearing due to the unavailability of key State Attorneys.

Reasons behind the adjournment

The adjournment was a result of around 50 State Attorneys being unavailable for the hearing. According to the court, the attorneys were attending a training session aimed at enhancing their ability to represent the interests of the State at the ECOWAS Court. This left the court with no choice but to adjourn the hearing. No new date for the hearing has been set as of now, leaving uncertainty regarding when proceedings will resume.

The case: A challenge to constitutional procedure

The suit, filed by Assafuah, challenges the constitutional procedure followed by former President John Mahama in response to petitions calling for the Chief Justice’s removal. Assafuah argues that the process did not allow the Chief Justice sufficient opportunity to respond to the allegations against her before the President initiated consultations with the Council of State, as required by Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution.

Assafuah is represented by former Attorney-General Godfred Dame, who contends that the failure to notify the Chief Justice beforehand violates her right to a fair hearing and undermines judicial independence. The case brings into question whether the President’s actions are in line with the provisions governing the removal of a sitting Chief Justice.

A similar suit and the constitutional debate

Alongside Assafuah’s suit, a similar case has been filed by a private citizen, raising questions about the legality and fairness of the process used to potentially remove the Chief Justice. The Supreme Court was expected to determine whether the President’s actions complied with the constitutional provisions outlined in Article 146 of the Constitution.

CJ’s response to the petitions

In a separate development, the Chief Justice has officially responded to the petitions that initiated the process for her potential removal. After receiving a ten-day notice from the President to provide a preliminary response, the Chief Justice has submitted her response. Sources from Joy News indicate that she has complied with the request, and it is anticipated that the process will now continue in accordance with the constitutional requirements.

Legal experts weigh in

Legal experts have raised questions about the ongoing relevance of the case in light of the Chief Justice’s response. Some believe the case before the Supreme Court may now be moot, as the process has continued with the Chief Justice’s response. However, the court will still need to determine whether the process was constitutionally valid.

The legal framework: Article 146 of the Constitution

At the heart of this case is Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, which governs the removal of justices from the Superior Courts and the Chairmen of Regional Tribunals. It outlines a clear process for removing judges, including a requirement for the President to act in consultation with the Council of State and to appoint a committee to investigate the petition.

Key provisions under Article 146 include:

The requirement for the Chief Justice to be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

The establishment of a committee to investigate the complaint.

The need for a decision to be made based on the committee’s recommendations.

The right of the affected CJ to be heard in defense.

This article also stipulates the process for suspension by the President, pending the outcome of the investigation after a prima facie case is established.

Next steps in the legal process

Although the adjournment has caused delays, the case is not over. The legal process will continue as the court awaits the next steps. With the Chief Justice’s response already filed, the case now hinges on whether the Supreme Court will find the procedures followed in her potential removal to be constitutionally sound or flawed. The legal community and the public will continue to watch closely as the case unfolds.