VINCENT EKOW ASSAFUAH v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
2025
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- BAFFOE-BONNIE AG. CJ (PRESIDING)
- AMADU JSC
- PROF. MENSA-BONSU JSC
- KULENDI JSC
- GAEWU JSC
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
- Administrative Law
- Evidence Law
2025
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, exercising its original jurisdiction, addressed a citizens bid to restrain President John Mahama and the Council of State from continuing Article 146 removal proceedings against Chief Justice Gertrude Asaaba Sackey Torkonoo, and to suspend the Presidents warrant of suspension under Article 146(10). The majority, authored by Justice I. O. Tanko Amadu and joined by Acting Chief Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, found the Applicants factual premisethat consultations determining a prima facie case were initiated without notifying the Chief Justicewas contradicted by an official letter indicating the petitions would first be sent to the Chief Justice for preliminary comments, and by her subsequent responses considered by the Council of State. Applying Welford Quarcoo, the Court held that no serious question, irreparable harm, or favorable balance of convenience justified halting a constitutionally sanctioned process; any defect could be remedied by ex post nullification. Justice Kulendi concurred, emphasizing separation of powers, the presumption of regularity, and that mere service of an injunction does not halt executive action. Prof. Mensa-Bonsu, joined by Justice Gaewu, dissented, advocating an injunction to protect fair hearing and judicial independence.
(1) By writ, issued on the 27th day of March 2025 the Plaintiff/Applicant (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”) invoked the original jurisdiction of the Court against the Attorney-General, the Defendant/Respondent, (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant”) seeking the following reliefs:
(i) A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Articles 146(1),(2),(4),(6) and (7), 23, 57(3) and 296 of the Constitution, the President is mandated to notify the Chief Justice about a petition for the removal of the Chief Justice and obtain his or her comments and responses to the content of such petition before referring the petition to the Council of State or commencing the consultation processes with the Council of State for the removal of the Chief Justice.
(ii) A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Articles 146(1), (2), (4), (6) and (7), 23 and 296 of the Constitution, a failure by the President to notify the Chief Justice and obtain his or her comments and responses to a petition for the removal of the Chief Justice before triggering the consultation process with the Council of State constitutes a violation of Article 146(6) as well as the constitutional protection of the security of tenure of the Chief Justice who is a Justice of the Superior Court of Judicature stipulated in Article 146(1) of the Constitution.
(iii) A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Articles 146(1), (2), (4), (6) and (7), 23, 57(3) and 296 of the Constitution, a failure by the President to notify the Chief Justice and obtain his or her comments and responses to a petition for the removal of the Chief Justice before triggering the consultation process with the Council of State amounts to an unjustified interference with the independence of the Judiciary enshrined in Article 127(1) and (2) of the Constitution.
(iv) A declaration that the failure by the President to notify the Chief Justice and obtain her comments and responses to a petition for the removal of the Chief Justice before triggering the process for her removal, constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to a fair hearing contained in Articles 23 and 296 and renders the consultation processes for the removal of the Chief Justice initiated by the President null, void and of no effect;
(v) Any o