Plaintiff files statement of case on Chief Justice removal case at the Supreme Court

The plaintiff in the case filed against the processes triggered by the President for the removal of the Chief Justice, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, has filed a statement of the case in support of the relevant writ he issued on March 27, 2025.

In a comprehensive 42-page submission filed yesterday on his behalf by his counsel and former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, the Member of Parliament for Old Tafo in the Ashanti Region argues for the Supreme Court to declare as null, void and of no effect all steps taken by the President in consultation with the Council of State for the removal of the Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaba Torkornoo.

Mr Dame refers to the constitutional history of Ghana from 1957 on provisions to protect the Judiciary from what he describes as “undue interference with the independence of the Judiciary and protection of the security of tenure of judges”, and also examines the legal regime and practice of various jurisdictions from around the world.

He concludes that the Supreme Court ought to exercise its powers of “judicial review under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) to nullify all steps taken purportedly to remove the Chief Justice from office as prayed for in the writ of summons”.

Fundamental right

The plaintiff submits that the right to be notified of a charge or charges levelled against a person and to be heard on the same is a fundamental and inalienable right enshrined in the 1992 Constitution.

That right, he said, “assumes greater significance in the context of quasi-judicial proceedings. The process of determining the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case in a petition for the removal of the Chief Justice is a quasi-judicial one performed by the President in consultation with the Council of State”.

In the view of the plaintiff, following the presentation of a petition to the President for the removal of the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice was entitled to receive a copy of the petition and to be notified about the contents thereof.

“The Chief Justice, upon a true and proper interpretation of the Constitution, is entitled to deliver his or her responses to allegations contained in the petition which will be a basis for consultation between the President and the Council of State on whether a prima facie case is disclosed by the petition,” Mr Dame submitted to the Supreme Court.

Counsel for the plaintiff contends that a notification of the Chief Justice and the grant of an opportunity to deliver a response to allegations contained in a petition are not only procedural rights but substantive due process designed to protect the institution of the Judiciary from abuse and undue interference, and must, therefore, be strictly observed.

President’s press release

Counsel for the plaintiff states that a purported step to furnish the Chief Justice with a copy of the petition and request her answers after the consultation process with the Council of State had begun violated the constitutional requirements of due process anticipated by Articles 23 and 296.

Such a step further, the plaintiff claimed, showed bad faith and should not be condoned by the court.

It said it was “outstandingly bad, shocking and egregiously unfair” for the President to announce a trigger of the removal processes of the Chief Justice under Article 146 to the whole world when he had not even extended the courtesy of informing the Chief Justice about a receipt of the petition(s) in question.

“What could explain the unbridled zeal of the President to trigger Article 146 and commence consultation with the Council of State as announced by his Spokesperson to the world when he had not informed the Chief Justice or given her a copy?

What kind of consultation had the President commenced with the Council of State?

Was it a consultation to form a committee, or a consultation to make a prima facie determination? These questions arise from the press release by the President,” Mr Dame argued in the statement of the case.

It said having regard to the history of the country for some political administrations in the past to control the Judiciary through removal processes, the Court ought to insist on strict compliance with the procedural requirements anticipated by the letter and spirit of Articles 23, 146 and 296 in the processes for an attempt to remove the Chief Justice, and declare any step taken in violation of the provisions null, void and of no effect”.