In a bold legal move, Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, Hon. Vincent Ekow Assafuah, has filed a writ at the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the consultation processes initiated by the President regarding the potential removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.
According to the MP, the process undertaken by the President lacks constitutional merit and must be declared “null and void and of no effect.”
The writ outlined several key reliefs sought by Assafuah, who argued that the President is constitutionally obligated to notify the Chief Justice about any petition seeking her removal before initiating consultations with the Council of State.
“[Relief 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 is 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.”
Hon. Vincent Ekow Assafuah
Assafuah argued that bypassing the Chief Justice in the removal process undermines the constitutional safeguards designed to protect the judiciary’s independence and security of tenure.
He asserted that before the President engages the Council of State, it is imperative to formally notify the Chief Justice and allow them an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
The writ underscored this concern by arguing that any deviation from the prescribed constitutional process undermines the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
It asserted that failing to notify the Chief Justice and seek their response before initiating consultations with the Council of State constitutes a direct violation of several constitutional provisions, including Articles 146(1), (2), (4), (6), and (7), as well as Articles 23 and 296.
Additionally, the writ called for a formal declaration affirming that such an omission contravenes Article 146(6) and weakens the constitutional safeguards that protect justices of the Superior Court of Judicature from arbitrary or politically motivated removal.
By sidestepping this critical procedural step, the petition argued, the fundamental principles of judicial security of tenure and due process are put at risk.
Judicial Independence Compromised
At the core of Assafuah’s argument is the assertion that the current procedure compromises judicial independence, a principle firmly established in Article 127(1) and (2) of the Constitution.
He contended that excluding the Chief Justice from such a pivotal process exposes the judiciary to undue political influence, a development he considers highly unacceptable.
“[Relief 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, a failure by the President to notify the Chief Justice and obtain his or her comments and responses to a petition for the removal of the Chief Justice before triggering the consultation process with the Council of State amounts to an unjustified interference with the independence of the Judiciary enshrined in article 127(1) and (2) of the Constitution.”
Hon. Vincent Ekow Assafuah
Assafuah’s writ also asserted that the President’s decision to bypass notifying the Chief Justice before initiating removal proceedings violates the constitutional right to a fair hearing.
He maintained that this procedural flaw undermines the legitimacy of the entire process, rendering it legally indefensible.
Accordingly, the writ sought a declaration that the omission directly breaches Articles 23 and 296 of the Constitution, making the consultation process for the Chief Justice’s removal null, void, and without legal effect.
This legal challenge comes amidst heightened political tension surrounding the judiciary, with accusations and counter-accusations regarding its perceived independence and impartiality.
Assafuah’s action signals a growing pushback against what some perceive as executive overreach in matters concerning the judiciary.
Legal experts argue that this case could have far-reaching implications, not only for the tenure of Chief Justice Torkornoo but also for how future petitions against top judicial officials are handled.
If the Supreme Court upholds Assafuah’s challenge, it could set a precedent that strengthens the judiciary’s independence against potential political maneuvering.
Assafuah’s petition reflects broader concerns about constitutional governance and the balance of power between the executive and judiciary.
As the case unfolds, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court to determine whether the President’s actions were in line with constitutional requirements or an overstep of executive authority.
READ ALSO: GSE Market Cap Hits GHS 137 Billion as MTN Ghana Leads Gainers
