SC can’t intervene in CJ removal process –Kwaku Azar

Stephen Kwaku Asare, a prominent law professor at the University of Florida and renowned for his insights on Ghanaian law, has made a significant statement regarding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases involving the removal of public officers. According to Kwaku Azar, the Supreme Court of Ghana has no jurisdiction to intervene in petitions concerning the removal of public officers, specifically under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution. This assertion was made in light of a landmark Supreme Court ruling that reinforces the separation of powers and jurisdictional boundaries.

Background CJ removal petition
At the heart of the issue is a petition seeking the removal of Ghana’s Chief Justice, filed through a series of three petitions directed to the President. The petition was subsequently forwarded to the Council of State for further consultations. Vincent Assifauh, a Member of Parliament for the Old Tafo Constituency in the Ashanti Region and a member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), through former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, initiated the process. This move has sparked discussions on whether the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, should have any role in such matters.

Reference to landmark Supreme Court ruling
In his statement, Kwaku Azar referenced the pivotal ruling in Ghana Bar Association v. Attorney-General & Anor [1995–96] 1 GLR 598 at p. 611. In that case, the Supreme Court made it clear that it does not have “original concurrent jurisdiction with the body empowered to exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters properly falling within the parameters of Article 146.” This legal precedent is crucial in understanding the scope of the Supreme Court’s powers and emphasizes that the Court cannot overstep its bounds in cases specifically assigned to other bodies, such as the procedures for the removal of public officers outlined in Article 146.

The implications of Azar’s statement
Kwaku Azar’s comments highlight a fundamental principle of constitutional law: the allocation of powers to specific bodies and the judicial system’s duty to respect those boundaries. His statement is clear in stating that the Supreme Court cannot intervene in the proceedings when it comes to the removal of a public officer under the provisions of Article 146. This reflects a broader debate on the role of the judiciary in high-profile petitions, particularly those involving public officers like the Chief Justice. However, Kwaku Azar was careful to note that his statement was not intended as legal advice nor was it meant to influence any pending or potential case.

The Final Word
In conclusion, Kwaku Azar left little room for ambiguity, closing his statement with a simple yet decisive phrase: “It is finished. Da Yie!” This remark serves as both a reinforcement of his legal opinion and a signal of the resolution of the matter from his perspective. Whether or not the legal community or the public agrees with his interpretation, his stance reinforces the importance of upholding constitutional procedures and respecting the roles designated by law.