The constitutional right of Ghanaians to question the fitness of judges in the superior courts has been clearly reaffirmed by former Member of Parliament and legal expert Hon. Inusah Fuseini, as conversations on judicial accountability and integrity rise over the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.
With growing public interest in the checks on judicial power, Fuseini’s analysis of Article 146 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution draws attention to the legal thresholds that must be satisfied before a Supreme Court justice or a judge of the superior court of judicature can be removed.
“If the people are dissatisfied with the conduct, competence, or mental state of a judge, they can petition the Head of State for their removal”
Hon. Inusah Fuseini, Former Member of Parliament and Legal Expert
He emphasized that such an act must be based on clear constitutional grounds, not mere dissatisfaction.
The foundation of the judiciary’s authority lies in the people, a point enshrined in Article 125. This principle, according to Fuseini, provides the constitutional grounding for citizens to seek the removal of judges whose “behavior, competence, or mental health raises concerns.”
Legal Triggers
Article 146 provides the formal procedure for removing a justice of the superior court of judicature or the chairman of a regional tribunal.
Fuseini highlighted that any petition submitted under this provision must disclose specific allegations – namely “misbehavior, misconduct, incompetence, or infirmity of body or mind.”
He explained that stated misconduct may involve acts such as political partisanship, which violates the expected neutrality of judges. “Is it that you saw the chief justice or justice of the superior court of judicature mounting a political platform to campaign for a political party?”
Such conduct would constitute a clear breach of judicial ethics and neutrality. He continued:
“Or is it that you have evidence of the chief justice trying to procure judgment for a party in a case by maybe directing a justice of a lower court or even a higher court to give a judgment in a certain way? That is stated misconduct”
Hon. Inusah Fuseini, Former Member of Parliament and Legal Expert
Standalone accusations without evidence or grounding in constitutional provisions will not be entertained, as Article 146 requires that any petition must contain specific and provable allegations.
Proven Incompetence
Another avenue for seeking removal is the judge’s competence, particularly in the delivery of justice. Fuseini noted that judges are legally bound to deliver judgment within six months after a case is concluded. A judge who delays without justification may be deemed incompetent.
“Is the judge a sitting duck?” he questioned, pointing to instances where no clear reason exists for such delay. “That might speak to incompetence.”
He went further to raise the quality of judgments themselves as a possible concern. Where a judge’s written decision “defies all legal precedence, principles and precepts,” the petitioner may reasonably wonder whether there is an issue of mental fitness or legal incompetence.
This, he clarified, would need to be clearly articulated in the petition. Fuseini also addressed mental and physical conditions that may hinder a judge’s capacity to serve. These conditions must be observable and serious enough to impair judgment or function.
“Is there an infirmity of body and mind? Is it that once upon a time, that judge was involved in an accident and the effects… are beginning to manifest in terms of forgetfulness or challenge in thinking?”
Hon. Inusah Fuseini, Former Member of Parliament and Legal Expert
He cautioned, however, that mere suspicion or personal biases are not enough. A successful petition must show clearly that the judge can no longer carry out their duties effectively.
Whether through sustained health complications or cognitive decline, the evidence must meet the standard outlined in Article 146. “There’s a distance, a wide distance between the intention to remove a judge and the facts upon which a judge can be removed,” Fuseini concluded.
His remarks reinforce the integrity of Ghana’s constitutional framework, which gives the public power to challenge judicial authority – but only within the strict confines of law and evidence.
READ MORE: Ghana Targets $10 Billion in Non-Traditional Export Earnings Annually by 2030
