December 19, 2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Fred Kwasi Awuah sued in the Supreme Court, asserting that the Chief Justice breached the 1992 Constitution by suspending him from office pending impeachment proceedings. He contended only the President could suspend a superior court judge under Article 146(10)(b) and challenged the authenticity of the Presidents authorization. The defendants maintained the Chief Justice acted on written presidential direction and that implied administrative authority supported the suspension. Applying its original constitutional jurisdiction, the Court refused to engage in fact-finding, invoked the presumption of regularity for the Presidents letter, and treated the two contemporaneous letters as clear. Interpreting Article 146(10), the Court distinguished presidential decision-making from administrative execution; it held the President accepted the Judicial Councils recommendation and could delegate communication of his decision to the Chief Justice. It further concluded the Chief Justices implied disciplinary authority does not apply where an impeachment committee is in place and found no conflict of interest under Article 284. All reliefs were denied.
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