Supreme Court Upholds Suspension of Ghana’s Chief Justice
The Supreme Court upheld the suspension of Ghana’s chief justice in a 3‑2 ruling, rejecting a petition filed by Vincent Ekow Assafuah that sought to halt the action taken by President John Dramani Mahama. The decision, issued on Tuesday, May 6, keeps the removal process on track under article 146 of the 1992 Constitution. Ghana’s legal observers noted that the narrow margin highlighted deep divisions within the bench.
Vote splits court as legal arguments surface.
Justices voted narrowly, with the majority finding no procedural breach that would merit stopping the suspension.
The court’s deliberations revealed contrasting interpretations of constitutional text, and the split vote showed how contentious the issue has become.
Earlier, the court dismissed an objection from the applicant’s lawyer concerning the role of Acting Chief Justice Baffoe‑Bonnie. The lawyer argued that constitutional history contains no instance of a chief justice overseeing a case that directly involves the office. He said the acting chief justice, as a beneficiary of the outcome, should not have presided.
How the removal process began
President Mahama’s office announced on March 25 that it had received three petitions calling for the removal of Gertrude Torkornoo. The communique said the documents were sent to the Council of State to start the consultation required by article 146.
Two writs filed on March 27 by Assafuah and Ebenezer Osei‑Owusu invoked the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, claiming the president’s actions violated the constitution. Former Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame, representing Assafuah, argued that the chief justice must be notified before any article 146 procedure can begin, citing principles of natural justice.
Chief justice’s demand for notice
Chief Justice Torkornoo sent a letter asking the president and council members to forward the petitions to her and to allow at least seven days for a response. She wrote, “It is the most fundamental perception of the common law and our constitutional dispensation ingrained into the justice delivery process, that no consideration that affects the rights of a defendant can be made unless the defendant has been given notice of the contents of a charge, and an opportunity to respond to them.”
Related: Supreme Court Weighs DHS Deportation Rules
The constitution’s article 146(6) and (7) require the president to set up a committee, after consulting the Council of State, to examine the merits of a petition. The text, however, is silent on whether a preliminary response from the chief justice must be obtained first.
The logical gap of a determination of a prima facie case was presented before the court in the case of Frank Agyei Twum vs. Attorney General & Akwetey (2005-2006), in which the plaintiff prayed for reliefs inter alia that the court should construe article 146 (6) concurrently with article 146(3) and 146(4) which requires the establishment of a prima facie case prior to the setting up of a Committee to investigate complaints in a petition against a Justice of the Superior Court because the Chief Justice is first and foremost a Judge of the Superior Court.
Upholding the plaintiff’s averments, the court through Date-Bah JSC (as he was then) declared,
In my view, the objective purpose and spirit of the 1992 Constitution require that a Chief Justice be given the benefit of a prior determination as to whether there is a prima facie case established against him or her.
The court’s reasoning felt like a rubber band stretched over a nail, offering a legal justification that many observers find hard to swallow.
Authorities have scheduled the detailed judgment explaining the suspension’s legality for May 21. Ghana’s legal community and the broader public await that decision, as well as the committee’s eventual report on the merits of the petitions against the chief justice.
