A former Director of the Ghana School of Law, Kwaku Ansa-Asare, has endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss an application for an injunction seeking to halt proceedings on petitions for the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.
According to him, the application lacked legal merit, and the court was right to throw it out in a 3–2 majority ruling on Tuesday, 6 May.
In an interview on The Pulse on Joy News shortly after the verdict, Mr Ansa-Asare argued that, as acting Chief Justice, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie holds both the legal and administrative authority, as head of the judiciary, to assign judges to cases.
Mr Ansa-Asare further noted that, where necessary, Justice Baffoe-Bonnie is permitted to sit on cases by virtue of the office he currently occupies. He therefore sees no illegality or constitutional violation in the acting Chief Justice’s involvement and believes there is no basis for any challenge to his actions.
He added that moral arguments against Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s role were subjective and could not form the basis for judicial compulsion.
“There is an acting Chief Justice, and administratively, he—and he alone—has the authority in matters of empanelling or composing justices to sit on this matter,” he stated. “In the absence of the Chief Justice, the most senior justice of the Supreme Court must carry out that duty. No one can fault the acting Chief Justice for deciding to sit.”
The injunction application formed part of a broader legal challenge involving the Chief Justice’s suspension, raising significant questions about fairness and judicial propriety.
Former Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame, representing the Member of Parliament for Tafo, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, objected to Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s participation and leadership of the panel. He argued that it was both unprecedented and improper for an acting Chief Justice to empanel and preside over a matter involving the substantive Chief Justice.
He contended that the acting Chief Justice was a direct beneficiary of the suspension, and thus it was inappropriate for him to preside over a case that could determine whether he might permanently replace the substantive Chief Justice.
That objection was unanimously dismissed by the Court after a brief recess, allowing proceedings to continue under Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s leadership.
The legal team opposing the suspension further argued that continuing proceedings without resolving preliminary objections would undermine the integrity of the judicial process. However, the majority of the panel found insufficient grounds to justify halting the case at this stage.
To strengthen his argument, the MP for Tafo noted during The Pulse discussions that former Chief Justice Georgina Wood had recused herself in some matters due to her appointment by former President Kufuor. He suggested that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, who was appointed acting Chief Justice by President Mahama, should have done the same.
Mr Ansa-Asare, however, disagreed.
“Justice Georgina Wood recused herself for reasons best known to her, but that does not mean other justices must follow her example. If Paul Baffoe-Bonnie feels he needs to sit and has done so, it is within his constitutional mandate,” he said.
He continued: “There is a legal doctrine known as the doctrine of necessity. Acting upon this doctrine, the Chief Justice or acting Chief Justice may decide to sit, and it is not unlawful to do so.
“If she had not been suspended and chosen to sit, she would not have erred. In like manner, if the acting Chief Justice chooses to sit, he has not erred. So, the issue of fairness does not arise—it is a constitutional mandate. The Constitution empowers the head of the judiciary to empanel, including himself or herself.”
The current panel hearing the case comprises Justices Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Yonny Kulendi, Amadu Tanko, and Ernest Gaewu.
Tuesday’s decision saw Justices Mensa-Bonsu and Gaewu dissenting, while the majority ruled that the case should proceed without further delay.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
