Chief Justice can’t be President - Justice Dennis Adjei at Parliamentary vetting
A Court of Appeal judge, Justice Sir Dennis Dominic Adjei who has been nominated for appointment to the Supreme Court bench, has rejected the idea that the Chief Justice can act as President under Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, describing the view as constitutionally inaccurate and based on outdated legal interpretations.
Appearing before Parliament’s Appointment Committee on Monday [June 16, 2025] for vetting Just Adjei argued that the legal views expressed under the 1992 Constitution were "old."
He said the notion that the Chief Justice can assume presidential powers in the absence of the President and Vice-President was based on a legal thinking that no longer applies.
He referred specifically to the Asare v Attorney-General case, explaining that the opinion expressed by Professor Kwaku Asare relied on historical precedent under the 1957 Order in Council, when the Chief Justice signed laws on behalf of the Governor-General.
“You cannot compare that system to the 1992 Constitution. There is no provision in our Constitution that allows the Chief Justice to act as President,” he said.
Justice Adjei added that such interpretations blur the line between the branches of government and threaten the independence of the judiciary.
“Why should a judge or Chief Justice, whose role is to resolve disputes, be given executive responsibilities? That would create a conflict of interest and undermine the principle of judicial neutrality,” he stated.
Members of the Appointment Committee of Parliament also questioned him on Article 60 of the Constitution, which deals with presidential succession.
Justice Adjei expressed concern about rulings that require the President to be physically present in Ghana to carry out his duties.
He argued that such interpretations fail to take into account the advances in technology and modern methods of governance.
“The Constitution must be interpreted with purpose. The realities of today are not the same as they were 30 years ago,” he said. “If the President can issue instructions and govern remotely, then absence should not automatically mean inability.”
He reiterated his support for a purposive interpretation of the Constitution, describing it as a “living organism” that must adapt to changing conditions.
“In future cases, the Court should take present realities into account,” he said, citing Justice Atuguba’s reasoning in Zenator v Lawrence and Tufuor v Attorney-General as examples of how purposive interpretation can guide constitutional decisions.
Justice Adjei has served in various capacities within the judiciary and is known for his academic contributions to constitutional law.
He is among seven nominees currently being vetted by the Appointments Committee of Parliament.
