JUDGEMNET

MAJORITY OPINION

PWAMANG JSC:

The Plaintiff/appellant/respondent, herein after referred to as “the Respondent”, until his removal from office on 7th December 2015, served as a Circuit Court Judge in Kumasi. His dismissal arose from a petition submitted to the Honourable Chief Justice by an investigative agency called TigereyePi, in which it was alleged that the Respondent had accepted from their investigators sums of GHS500.00 and GHS400.00 at different places in order to influence his judgment in a case: Republic v. Kwaku Boakye, which he was before him. The first amount was said to have been paid to him in his chambers and the second at his private residence in Kumasi, both for the purpose of influencing him to acquit the accused person in the case.

The petition was forwarded to the Judicial Council who after deliberating on it decided to suspend the Respondent and refer the matter to the disciplinary committee of the Council to investigate. The Respondent was written to by letter dated 4th September 2015 and informed of the allegations of bribery with detailed particulars of what he was alleged to have done and requested to react thereto. He was also informed that the Judicial Council had constituted a committee to investigate the matter and that he was to appear before the committee and may do so with counsel of his choice. The Respondent reacted to the letter of 4th September, 2015 and subsequently appeared before the disciplinary committee with his lawyer.

At the committee hearing, Anas Aremyao Anas, a popular investigative journalist, testified on behalf of TigereyePi and tendered a video recording of the interactions between their investigation team and the Respondent and his registrar in his chambers and at his residence in proof of their allegations that the Respondent accepted monies in order to influence his judgment. Anas Aremyao Anas was cross examined by the counsel for the respondent. After the petitioner’s evidence, the committee invited the Respondent to open his defence which he did by testifying himself and called one witness.

At the end of the evidence of the parties, the committee made their findings and found that the Respondent’s conduct contravened Article 151(1) of the 1992 Constitution and Section 16 of the Judicial Service Act, 1960 (C.A. 10). They recommended that the Respondent be removed from office. The committee’s report and recommendations were presented to the Judicial Coun