Political parties, professional associations, and civil society have all offered differing interpretations of the President’s power and the constitutional process in the wake of the Chief Justice’s suspension, which has become a hot topic of legal and political discussion in recent weeks.
The Progressive People’s Party (PPP) is the most recent to join the chorus. The party firmly supported the President’s decision to suspend Ghana’s Chief Justice, calling it a constitutionally sound action based on due process and respect for the law.
The PPP clarified that the suspension was a legal measure directed by the 1992 Constitution’s provisions rather than being capricious or politically motivated in a press release signed by its National Chairman, Nana Ofori Owusu.
“Due process necessitates adherence to established principles of procedure, respect for the rule of law, and the safeguarding of an individual’s rights.
“In this instance, it is our understanding that the President acted on the advice of the Council of State in suspending the Chief Justice”.
Progressive People’s Party (PPP)
The PPP is of the view that because the Chief Justice was given a chance to address the accusations made against her before the President took action, she was not denied natural justice.
The PPP claims that the process clearly shows the President’s dedication to following established protocols, maintaining the rule of law, and protecting fundamental human rights.
Although the specifics of the accusations are still unknown, the PPP maintained that the Constitution, being the highest law of the land, offers sufficient protections and avenues to deal with wrongdoing by senior state officials.
The party appealed to the public to refrain from interfering with or sensationalizing the constitutional processes.
Criticism of GBA’s Stance
The PPP, however, was disappointed with the Ghana Bar Association’s (GBA) response, calling the lawyers’ organization’s call for the “suspension of the CJ’s suspension” not only unclear but possibly unconstitutional.
“As an association of learned lawyers, we had hoped the GBA would affirm the adherence to due process in this matter. Instead, their call for a ‘suspension of the CJ’s suspension ‘ is perplexing and could be interpreted as an attempt to suspend due process itself, potentially setting aside portions of our Constitution.”
Progressive People’s Party (PPP)
The PPP cautioned that such opinions, especially when expressed by legal experts, may unintentionally encourage a selective justice culture in which the interpretation of the law is based more on the personalities of those involved than on the law and the facts.
The party emphasized the adherence to the core democratic principle of accountability, even as it recognized the democratic right of individuals and organizations to defend the Chief Justice and push for her reinstatement.
The party cited the removal of the Electoral Commission Chairperson and other commissioners in 2018 as an example of historical parallels.
The PPP had insisted at the time that the constitutional process for the officials’ removal must be followed if they were in fact guilty of misconduct and incompetence.
The party emphasized that this principle of fairness must equally apply in the current matter involving the Chief Justice.
“Ultimately, the Committee of Inquiry found procurement violations constituting stated misbehaviour, leading to the Chairperson’s removal—a process later validated by the Supreme Court.
“Therefore, in our defense of the Chief Justice, we must not lose sight of the essential requirements of accountability, due process, the rule of law, and absolute compliance with constitutional provisions”.
Progressive People’s Party (PPP)
The PPP also emphasized that immunity from accountability is not implied by the theory of separation of powers.
Instead, it is intended to protect independence while enabling the efficient operation of constitutional checks and balances.
“The privileges, conditions of service, powers, and the honor bestowed upon the heads of the three arms of state necessitate that they are held to the highest standards of accountability.”
Progressive People’s Party (PPP)
In calling for calm, the PPP reiterated its belief that the President’s actions were lawful and within the framework of Article 146 of the Constitution, which outlines the processes for the removal of the Chief Justice.
“It is our assessment that these provisions have been fully respected by the President in the current situation,” the statement concluded.
The PPP’s intervention highlights the party’s steadfast stance on the Constitution’s supremacy, which it has maintained in earlier instances involving public servants.
The PPP’s statement supports those who contend that regardless of the status of the officeholder in question, legal procedures must be respected.
The party’s position also supports the notion that accountability and the rule of law must continue to be the unshakeable cornerstones of Ghanaian democracy, even as demands for openness and equity in governance increase.
