VINCENT EKOW ASSAFUAH v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL & THEODORE KOFI ATTA-QUARTEY v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

TANKO AMADU JSC;-

INTRODUCTION

1.My Lords, in the exercise of judicial power vested in the Supreme Col)rt pursuant to Article 126( 4) of the 1992 Constitution, few duties laid upon the court are graver than that of pronouncing upon the validity or otherwise of the process by which the Republic may remove the very head of its Judiciary. The office of Chie Justice is a constitutional trust, held on behalf of the people of Ghana, and it is independent and immune from executive or parliamentary interference except as otherwise provided by the same Constitution which guarantees the independence of the office.

2.However, the framers of the 1992 Constitution understood that, judicial office being a pub!ic _trust, where the C::hief Justice or any Justice of the Superior Courts has fallen intostatecj misbehaviour, incompetence, or infirmity, the holder of any such judicial office may, by a process s~rupulously prescribed, be removed from office. Articles 127 and 146 of the 1992 Constitution, hold these two imperatives: the security of judicial tenure and the accountability of the judicial office in a single, delicate, yet deliberate ba,ance.

3.The present consolidated actions ask us to make a judicial prouncernent with respect to that balance. The Plaintiffs, both suing as concerned citizens under Article 2( 1) of the 1992 Constitution, contend that, the steps taken in respect of three petitions seeking the removal of the Chief Justice, Her Ladyship Justice Gertrude Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, are constitutionally flawed. They assert in substance, that, before a petition for the removal of the Chief Justice may even pass the prima facie threshold, the Chief Justice was entitled to be notified of it, furnished with it, and heard upon it.

4.In Writ No.J1/21/2025 in particular, the Plaintiff's case in addition is that, the entire mechanism could not lawfully be set in motion at all, until a published Constitutional Instrument had been enacted to regulate the President's discretion, the role of the Council of State, and the proceedings of the Committee of Inquiry appointed by the President pursuant to Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution.

5.We would be less than candid, if we did not acknowledge the peculiar solemnity of the occasion, because, this constitutional duty we have been called upon to discharge, is hot 6f our choice but of service to the nation and for which we have by our judicial oaths sworn to uphold without fear, favour