NPP MP sues AG over CJ removal process

Background of the lawsuit
In a bold legal move, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, the Member of Parliament (MP) for Old Tafo and a member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), has initiated a lawsuit challenging the legality of the process set in motion by President John Mahama concerning the potential removal of the Chief Justice. The suit, filed at the Supreme Court of Ghana, takes issue with the procedure followed by the President, particularly the steps preceding the consultation with the Council of State regarding the Chief Justice’s removal. Assafuah, who is acting as a concerned citizen under the Constitution’s Article 2(1)(b), is seeking clarifications on the constitutional provisions surrounding the removal of a Chief Justice.

Legal grounds for the suit
The crux of the suit hinges on the procedural aspects of President Mahama’s actions in initiating the removal process. Assafuah, through his legal counsel, argues that the President is constitutionally obligated to notify the Chief Justice and solicit the Justice’s comments before referring any removal petition to the Council of State. According to the suit, this is a requirement under several articles of the 1992 Constitution, including Articles 146(1), (2), (4), (6), and (7), 23, 57(3), and 296. Assafuah contends that failing to notify the Chief Justice or obtain their comments undermines the judiciary’s independence and breaches constitutional protections surrounding the security of tenure for the Chief Justice.

Key reliefs sought by Assafuah
The MP for Old Tafo is seeking several declarations from the Supreme Court, which include:

1. Presidential duty to notify 

The court should declare that the President must notify the Chief Justice and obtain their comments before sending any removal petition to the Council of State, as stipulated in the Constitution.

2. Violation of constitutional protections Assafuah seeksa declaration that the failure to notify the Chief Justice before initiating the consultation with the Council of State constitutes a violation of Article 146(6), thus breaching the constitutional safeguards around the judiciary’s independence and the Chief Justice’s security of tenure.

3. Unjustified interference with judicial independence

The suit calls for a declaration that any omission in this process constitutes an unjustified interference with the independence of the judiciary, thus violating Articles 127(1) and (2) of the Constitution.

4. Right to fair hearing

The MP argues that the President’s failure to involve the Chief Justice in the process before triggering the removal process violates the right to a fair hearing, which should render the entire consultation process void.

5. Other appropriate reliefs

The suit also requests the court to grant any additional reliefs it deems appropriate in the circumstances.

Presidency’s position
This lawsuit comes on the heels of an announcement from the presidency, which revealed that President Mahama had begun consultations with the Council of State following three separate petitions calling for the removal of the Chief Justice. These petitions prompted the President to initiate the process, a decision now contested by Assafuah.

Supreme court’s role
The matter is expected to be heard by the Supreme Court in the coming weeks. The Attorney-General, representing the state, has been given fourteen (14) days to respond to the suit after being served with the documents. This case could potentially have significant implications for the legal framework surrounding the removal of high-ranking judicial officers, including the Chief Justice, and may clarify the procedural steps necessary to maintain the independence of the judiciary.

As the legal battle unfolds, the nation will be watching closely to see how the highest court in the land interprets the constitutional provisions regarding the removal of the Chief Justice. This case underscores the ongoing debate about the balance of power between the executive, judiciary, and the protection of judicial independence in Ghana’s democratic system.