THE REPUBLIC v. THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL EX-PARTE: JUSTICE KWAME OHENE-ESSEL (RTD)

DOTSE JSC:-

PROLOGUE

It is often said that “justice delayed, is justice denied”. The reverse of this is also

another common saying, it states as follows “justice hurried, is justice buried”.

There must therefore always be a delicate balance in the expeditious adjudication of

cases to ensure that either way, no one is unduly disadvantaged by the vigilance or

indolence of the judicial system.

This case relates to a reference made by the learned High Court Judge, Gifty Agyei Addo

J, presiding over the High Court, Human Rights Division 1, Accra in Suit No.

HR/0102/2017 in an application for Judicial Review in the nature of Certiorari and

Prohibition pursuant to order 55 of C. I. 47 intitutled The Republic v 1. The Chief

Justice of the Republic of Ghana, 2. The Attorney-General – Respondents; Exparte Justice Kwame Ohene-Essel (Rtd) – Applicant.

The learned trial High Court Judge Gifty Adjei Addo J referred articles 146 (3) and (5)

and also 155 (1) (b) of the Constitution 1992 to the Supreme Court pursuant to article

130 (2) of the Constitution for interpretation.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of this case are as follows:-

Arising from the submission of a petition by TIGEREYEPI, a private investigative entity,

acting per Anas Aremeyaw Anas on the 31st of August 2015 to the President of the

Republic of Ghana on allegations of corruption against some members of the Judiciary,

including the Applicant herein, who was at all material times a High Court Judge at

Tarkwa, the President acting in accordance with Article 146 (3) of the Constitution 1992

referred the said petition to the Chief Justice, (1st Respondent herein) to determine

whether a prima facie case for removal of the Applicant has been made.

Based on the allegations made by the TIGEREYEP1 against the Applicant which had been

referred to the 1st Respondent herein, by the President, the 1st Respondent forwarded

the said petition to the Applicant and requested him to respond to same by letter dated

th September 2015.

The Applicant was therefore invited to the office of the 1st Respondent on 10th September

2015, whereupon he was given the letter and copy of the audio visual transcript of the

allegations against him and the Applicant was duly requested to respond to same by 14th

September 2015.

On 22nd September 2015, the Applicant in the company of his Solicitor was given the

opportunity to watch the audio visual recording of his alleged misconduct.

However, the 1st Respondent a