The issue regarding Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo’s potential removal is creating quite a stir in Ghana. Given that the petitions were filed last month, and the 10-day window for her response is now closing, this situation is likely to escalate further as legal and constitutional debates intensify. The way the President handles these petitions will have a significant impact on the public’s trust in the judicial process and could set a precedent for future cases of judicial accountability.
The involvement of the legal and constitutional experts will be crucial here. There could be discussions about the grounds for her removal and whether the petitions meet the constitutional requirements for such a process. Any developments from here could potentially lead to broader political implications, depending on how the case progresses. Justice Torkornoo’s request for copies of the petitions and an extension of time to respond highlights her commitment to due process and fairness, which is essential in such high-profile cases. This approach not only upholds the principles of justice but also allows for transparency, giving her a fair opportunity to defend herself against the allegations.
With her response now formally submitted to both the President and the Council of State, the next step will involve consultation under Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution. This article outlines the procedure for the removal of a Chief Justice, emphasizing the importance of a fair and thorough process. The Council of State plays a critical role in this process, as it is tasked with advising the President on whether the petitions have merit and whether the necessary grounds for removal have been met.
As the process moves forward, it will be interesting to see how the Council of State evaluates the petitions and Justice Torkornoo’s response. The final decision could have significant implications for the judiciary’s independence and the overall integrity of Ghana’s constitutional system.
The unfolding situation indeed marks a pivotal moment in Ghana’s constitutional and legal framework. If the Council of State determines that the petitions have merit, it could lead to the establishment of a committee to investigate the allegations against Chief Justice Torkornoo. This investigation will be crucial in determining whether there are sufficient grounds for her removal from office.
The suit filed by Vincent Ekow Assafuah adds another layer of complexity to the process. The challenge focuses on whether the President followed the correct procedure by initiating the removal process without first notifying the Chief Justice. This is a significant legal point, as it concerns the interpretation and application of the due process outlined in the constitution. The Supreme Court’s hearing on April 9 will likely provide clarity on whether the President’s actions were in line with constitutional requirements.
As you mentioned, Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution provides the framework for the removal of justices of superior courts, including the Chief Justice. It outlines the grounds for removal, such as incapacity, misbehavior, or gross misconduct, and specifies the procedure, which includes consultation with the Council of State, followed by a committee of inquiry if necessary.
1. Grounds for Removal (Section 1):
- A Justice of the Superior Court or a Chairman of a Regional Tribunal can only be removed for “misbehaviour” or “incompetence,” or if they are unable to perform their duties due to physical or mental infirmity.
2. Removal Procedure (Section 2):
- The removal process must follow the specific procedure outlined in the article. This ensures that the process is clear and structured.
3. Petition and Referral (Section 3):
- If the President receives a petition requesting the removal of a Justice or Chairman (except the Chief Justice), the President is required to refer the petition to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice then determines whether there is a prima facie (initial) case for removal.
4.Committee Formation (Section 4):
- If the Chief Justice believes that there is a prima facie case for removal, they must establish a committee. This committee will consist of three members: Justices of the Superior Courts or Chairmen of the Regional Tribunals, appointed by the Judicial Council. Additionally, two other non-legal members will be appointed by the Chief Justice, based on the advice of the Council of State. These non-legal members should not be part of the Council of State, Parliament, or be lawyers.
5.Investigation and Recommendations (Section 5):
- The committee formed under clause (4) (for non-Chief Justice or Chairman cases) is tasked with investigating the complaint. Once the investigation is complete, the committee will submit its findings and recommendations to the Chief Justice, who will then forward them to the President.
6.Removal of the Chief Justice (Section 6):
- In cases where the petition concerns the removal of the Chief Justice, the President, after consulting with the Council of State, will appoint a different committee. This committee will consist of two Justices of the Supreme Court (with one acting as the chairman) and three other individuals who are neither members of the Council of State, Parliament, nor lawyers.
7. Inquiry and Recommendation for Chief Justice Removal (Section 7):
- The committee formed in clause (6) is tasked with investigating the petition regarding the Chief Justice’s removal. Based on their findings, the committee will recommend to the President whether or not the Chief Justice should be removed from office.
8. In Camera Proceedings (Section 8):
- All proceedings related to these petitions for removal must be held in private (in camera). The Justice or Chairman who is the subject of the petition has the right to defend themselves, either by representing themselves or by choosing a lawyer or another expert to represent them.
- President’s Decision Based on Recommendations (Section 9):
- The President is required to act in accordance with the recommendations made by the committee. This ensures that the President’s decision is based on the outcome of a thorough investigation and not made arbitrarily.
- Suspension of Judicial Officers (Section 10):
- This clause outlines the President’s authority to suspend a judicial officer under certain circumstances:
- (a) Chief Justice: If the petition concerns the Chief Justice, the President, upon the advice of the Council of State, can suspend the Chief Justice. This suspension must be formalized by a warrant signed by the President.
- (b) Other Justices or Chairmen: If the petition concerns any other Justice of a Superior Court or a Chairman of a Regional Tribunal, the President, acting on the advice of the Judicial Council, may suspend the individual in question. This suspension must also be formalized based on the Council’s recommendation.
- These provisions allow the President to take immediate action if there is a need to remove the individual from their post temporarily during the investigation or inquiry process.
- Revocation of Suspension (Section 11):
- The President has the authority to revoke a suspension at any time. This gives the President flexibility to restore a judicial officer to their post if circumstances change or if the suspension is no longer deemed necessary.
Key Takeaways:
- Binding Recommendations: The President must follow the recommendations of the committee, which ensures that the decision is grounded in the committee’s investigation.
- Suspension Authority: The President can suspend a judicial officer while the removal process is underway, but only with the appropriate advice from the Council of State or Judicial Council, depending on the position.
- Revocation of Suspension: The President can lift a suspension at any time, offering flexibility should the situation change.
These clauses aim to balance the need for administrative action (suspension) with the preservation of justice and fairness during the removal process. It ensures that the President can act decisively when necessary while also providing a mechanism for revocation if the suspension is found to be unwarranted.
