2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved the suspension of a High Court judge by the Chief Justice, which the Plaintiff contended was unconstitutional as only the President could suspend judges under Article 146(10)(b). The Court, however, upheld that the Chief Justice acted within her administrative capacity and on the President's directive, affirming the constitutionality of the process. The legal interpretation revolved around the delegation of authority, distinctions between decision-making and administrative execution, and conflict of interest principles under the Constitution. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims, finding no breach of constitutional provisions.
JUDGMENT
BENIN, JSC:-
Introduction: Plaintiff's case
The plaintiff filed a writ before this Court claiming that the Chief Justice, the 1st Defendant herein, has committed infringement of the 1992 Constitution by writing to suspend him from office as a High Court judge, pending impeachment proceedings against him for his removal from office. He claims that it is only the President of the Republic who is empowered to suspend a Judge under article 146(10)(b) of the Constitution. In the affidavit in support of the writ, the Plaintiff recounted the facts leading to the setting up of an impeachment committee to investigate bribery allegation against him. He claims the Chief Justice has no role to play in suspending a judge who is undergoing impeachment. He therefore sought the following reliefs from this court:
1. A declaration that by the true and proper interpretation of Articles 2(1), 130, 146(10) of the 1992 Constitution, it is only the President of the Republic who can suspend a Justice of the superior court who is facing an impeachment committee for removal from office.
2. A declaration that by the true and proper interpretation of the said Article 146(10)(b) of the 1992 Constitution, the power of the President of the Republic to suspend a Justice of the superior court during impeachment proceedings cannot be delegated to the Chief Justice.
3. A declaration that the Chief Justice cannot suspend a Justice of the superior court who appears before an impeachment committee set up under Article 146 for the purpose of removal from office.
4. A declaration that the suspension of the Plaintiff from office contained in the 1st Defendant's letter dated 24th March 2016 is in breach of the Constitution and null and void.
5. An order of the court directed to the 1st Defendant to allow the Plaintiff to perform his duties as a Justice of the High Court.
Defendants' case
The defendants argued simply that the Chief Justice has the implied authority of the President to suspend a judge who has committed infractions of the criminal law, upon a purposive construction of some named provisions of the Constitution. They maintain the position that the Chief Justice acted to suspend the Plaintiff on the written authorization of the President and this accords with the provisions of Article 146(10)(b) of the Constitution.
Agreed issues
The parties agreed on the following issues:
1. Whether the President indeed directed the Chief Justice to suspend the plaintiff.
2