The Supreme Court has, by a 4–1 majority decision, dismissed a case filed by the Centre for Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems (CenCES) that sought to reverse President John Mahama’s suspension of the Chief Justice and halt the work of the committee set up to consider her possible removal from office.
The five-member panel comprised Justices Paul Baffoe-Bonnie (Presiding), Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, Yonny Kulendi, Henry Anthony Kwofie, and Yaw Asare Darko. Justice Yaw Asare Darko was the sole dissenter in the ruling.
CenCES had argued that the President’s action violated constitutional provisions and sought an order to invalidate both the suspension and the ongoing proceedings by the committee of inquiry.
However, the apex court upheld the President’s decision, allowing the committee’s work to continue.
The action of the Centre for Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems (CenCES), a Ghanaian company limited by guarantee, was instituted against the Attorney General (1st Defendant), Her Ladyship, Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo (2nd Defendant), and His Lordship Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, a Justice of the Supreme Court and chairman of the presidential investigative committee established by the President (3rd Defendant).
In a writ dated 15 May 2025, CenCES argues that the president acted unconstitutionally when he suspended the Chief Justice and initiated a five-member committee to investigate petitions against her.
The group contends that the process violated several provisions of the 1992 Constitution, including those protecting judicial independence, the right to a fair trial, and equal treatment under the law.
According to CenCES, the decision to establish a prima facie case against the Chief Justice, which was communicated by the Secretary to the President, was not made in accordance with the legal procedures outlined in Article 146 of the Constitution.
Among the seven reliefs sought, CenCES is asking the Supreme Court to declare that:
- The president’s suspension of the Chief Justice contravenes Articles 125 and 127, which guarantee the independence of the judiciary.
- The formation of a removal committee without a lawfully determined prima facie case is unconstitutional and infringes on the Chief Justice’s rights under Articles 17 and 19.
- The suspension warrant issued by the President on 22 April 2025 is arbitrary and invalid, and should therefore be struck down.
CenCES further sought an order to stop the removal committee from proceeding with any hearings or investigations and was also asking the court to restrain the Chief Justice from participating in any part of the process, citing conflict of interest concerns.
The civil society group argued that the president’s actions amount to executive overreach and called for the Supreme Court to uphold constitutional safeguards protecting judicial autonomy.
The case added a fresh twist to the ongoing constitutional discourse around checks and balances, particularly in matters involving high-ranking judicial officers.
JoyNews’ Legal Affairs Correspondent, Latif Iddrisu, reports that the Supreme Court has called the second case filed by a private citizen on the same matter.
The plaintiff, Theodore Kofi Atta-Quartey, is also seeking to halt the ongoing processes to potentially remove the Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, from office.
Among other things, the plaintiff is requesting the apex court to place an interlocutory injunction on the work of the committee of inquiry established under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution. He argues that until his suit is fully determined, the proceedings relating to the Chief Justice’s removal should be put on hold.
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.
