2025
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court ruling, delivered under its original jurisdiction, addresses an interlocutory bid by the Applicant to restrain a presidentially triggered removal process against Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo. The Court first upheld a preliminary objection and struck out specified affidavit paragraphs and exhibits that disclosed petition contents, holding that Article 146(8)’s in-camera prescription is a structural safeguard for the judiciary, not a waivable personal privilege. Turning to the injunction, the Court applied established standards (Welford Quarcoo) and a heightened threshold for enjoining constitutional processes, emphasizing a presumption of constitutionality. It held that Exhibit 1’s brevity did not, by itself, invalidate the prima facie determination, and the Applicant failed to show manifest unconstitutionality or irreparable harm. The balance of convenience and public interest favored allowing the Article 146 process to run its course, with any defects remediable post-facto. The application was dismissed, with Tanko Amadu JSC concurring and Darko Asare JSC dissenting.
<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