By a 3-2 majority decision, the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday dismissed two applications seeking to injunct President John Dramani Mahama from exercising his constitutional right to forward a petition for the removal of the Chief Justice from office to the Council of State.
Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, the acting Chief Justice, Emmanuel Yoni Kulendi and Amadu Issifu Tanko voted in favour of the Attorney-General’s arguments against the two applications, while Justices Ernest Gaewu and Prof. Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu dissented.
The court, speaking through Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, said the reasons for the decision would be ready by May 21, 2025.
When the case was called, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, counsel for Mr Vincent Ekow Assafuah, the plaintiff, and Member of Parliament for Tafo in the Asante Region, raised a preliminary legal objection to the composition of the panel, which had Justice Baffoe-Bonnie as the President.
Mr Dame contends that it was not proper for the acting Chief Justice to be part of the panel.
“The Chief Justice has been suspended and you are acting as chief justice. Respectfully, I do not think it is proper for you to preside over this panel. The acting chief justice has power to empanel judges to hear cases, but I think it is inappropriate for you to empanel and preside over the hearing
of this matter. The question is whether an acting chief justice ought to empanel himself in a case such as this.”
Mr Dame, a former Attorney General and Minister of Justice, argued that to the extent that it affects the position of the chief justice, never in the history of Ghana that in the case affecting the office of the chief justice, an acting chief justice empanelled himself.
The counsel aslo said to the extent that the determination of the instant matter would affect the status of both the Chief Justice and the acting Chief Justice, it was his submission that the acting Chief Justice should not be part of the panel.
Additionally, Mr Dame asserted that it does not augur well for the administration of justice and had tendency to lower public confidence if the proceedings are presided over by the acting chief justice.
The Deputy Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Dr Srem-Sai, said the plaintiff’s objection confused two things, and gravely misconceived.
First, he said “the assumption that an acting position was a personal benefit in the sense that your lordship in your acting position is entitled to some personal benefit.”
“Contrary to that misconception, the position of the acting chief justice comes with duty and not personal benefit and your lordships have helped in long line of cases that when a constitutional matter comes up beige this court neither the plaintiff, the defendant nor the court stands to gain anything personal,” Dr Srem-Sai added.
He said it was the substantive Chief Justice who was still the chief justice who was the subject matter of the proceedings in question, and for that matter the three cases cited by Mr Dame were materially different from the case before the court.
The Deputy Attorney-General and Minister of Justice told the court that once the misconception was removed the objection had no basis in law.
The court, however, overruled the objection on the basis that it was unmeritorious.
Furthermore, Mr Assafuah contends that President John Dramani Mahama was mandated to notify the Chief Justice about the petition for her removal and obtain her response before referring the petition to the Council of State.
The legislator is praying the apex court for a declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 146 (1), (2), (4), (6) and (7), 23, 57 (3) and 296 of the Constitution, the President was mandated to notify the Chief Justice about a petition for the removal of the Chief Justice and obtain his or her comments and responses to the content of such petition before referring the petition to the Council of State or commencing the consultation processes with the Council of State for the removal of the Chief Justice.
BY MALIK SULLEMANA