VINCENT EKOW ASSAFUAH vs. 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
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
2025
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
A citizen sought declarations and an interlocutory injunction to stop the President and Council of State from continuing removal proceedings against the Chief Justice, arguing that consultations began before she was notified and thus breached Articles 146, 23 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution. The Supreme Court, by majority (Amadu JSC, joined by Baffoe-Bonnie Ag CJ) with a concurring opinion by Kulendi JSC, dismissed the injunction, holding that the Chief Justice had in fact been informed and had responded before any prima-facie assessment, that no irreparable harm was shown, and that halting a constitutionally mandated process would not serve the public interest. A detailed dissent by Mensa-Bonsu JSC (joined by Gaewu JSC) would have granted the injunction to safeguard judicial independence and fair-hearing rights. The ruling clarifies the high threshold for injunctive relief against executive actions in Ghana’s public-law context and reaffirms that mere service of an injunction application does not freeze presidential functions.
<u>TANKO AMADU JSC: </u>
(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 other order(s) as to this Honourable Court may seem mee