2025
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court, exercising original jurisdiction, considered an application by a civil-society organisation to halt ongoing impeachment steps against the Chief Justice. The applicant argued that the President’s determination of a prima-facie case and her suspension were unconstitutional because no reasoned decision had been provided and because publication of petition materials breached the confidentiality mandated by article 146(8). The Court first upheld a preliminary objection by the Attorney-General, striking out portions of affidavits and exhibits that reproduced the petitions, holding that the in-camera requirement protects the judiciary’s institutional integrity. Turning to the interlocutory injunction, the majority (Kulendi JSC, joined by Baffoe-Bonnie Ag CJ and Kwofie JSC) applied the high threshold for restraining another branch and found no manifest illegality, irreparable harm or balance-of-convenience justification; any defects could be addressed after trial. Tanko Amadu JSC concurred separately. Darko Asare JSC dissented, maintaining that lack of reasons for the prima-facie finding posed a grave threat to judicial independence warranting an immediate stay. The application was therefore dismissed and the impeachment process allowed to proceed.
<u>KULENDI JSC:</u>
i. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 17(1), (2), (3), 23, and 296, 146(1), (2), (3)(4) and (6), of the Constitution, the purported determination by the President communicated by the Secretary to the President dated 22nd April, 2025, in respect of three petitions presented for the removal of the Chief Justice does not constitute a determination of a prima facie case and is therefore null, void and of no effect;
ii. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 17(1), (2), (3), 146(1), (2), (3) and (6), 125(3), and (4), 127(1) and (2) of the Constitution, the purported determination by the President communicated by the Secretary to the President that a prima facie case has been established against the Chief Justice contravenes the constitutional prohibition of executive interference with the independence of the Judiciary prohibited by articles 125(3) and (4), 127(1) and (2) and is therefore void;
iii. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 146(1), (2), (3), (4), and (6), 23 and 296 of the Constitution, the establishment of a five-member committee to inquire into three petitions against the Chief Justice without a prima facie case duly determined pursuant to article 146 (1), (2), (3), (4), and (6) violates the 2nd Defendant's right to equal treatment before the law guaranteed under article 17 (1) (2) (3) and right to fair trial under article 19 (13) and so is unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no effect;
iv. An order restraining the committee set up by the President from proceeding to carry out the terms of reference of the committee set out in the letter dated 22nd April, 2025 and/or to inquire into the three petitions against the Chief Justice, and to restrain the 2nd Defendant from participating in proceedings of the Committee;
*v. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 146(1), (2), (3), (4) and (6), 23, and 296 of the Constitution, the warrant for suspension issued by the President to suspend the Chief Justice dated 22nd April, 2025, violates the directions of the Constitution in articles 146 (1), (2), (3), (4), and (6), the 2nd