Ghana’s democratic journey has seen various constitutional procedures tested, including the process for petitioning to remove a Chief Justice. Under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, the procedure for removing a Chief Justice follows a carefully structured process that protects both judicial independence and public accountability.
The first major test of this constitutional provision came during the case of Chief Justice Kwasi Afrifa in 1970, though this occurred under a different constitutional framework. This historical event helped shape the current constitutional provisions that require specific steps:
First, a petition must be submitted to the President, outlining specific allegations of misconduct. The President must then forward this petition to the Council of State for initial review. If the Council finds a prima facie case, a committee is established to investigate the allegations.
The process requires that such petitions must be based on stated misbehavior, incompetence, or inability to perform the functions of the office. The investigation committee typically includes Supreme Court justices and other distinguished legal professionals.
Throughout Ghana’s history, the high bar for such petitions has served as a safeguard for judicial independence while maintaining a path for accountability when necessary. The procedure emphasizes the delicate balance between protecting the judiciary from frivolous attacks while ensuring that genuine concerns can be addressed through proper constitutional channels.
The story of chief justice removal petitions in Ghana reflects the nation’s commitment to constitutional democracy and the rule of law, where even the highest judicial office holder can be held accountable through established legal procedures.
A petition sighted and purported to have been written by Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare on the 17th of December 2024 to the President of Ghana requests for the removal of the Chief Justice of Ghana. The nineteen (19) page document outlines in detail issues that constitute grounds for removal of the CJ. To the petitioner, the actions discussed in the letter did not only breach constitutional provisions but also constitute stated misbehaviour and confirm acts of incompetence. To the petitoner, the actions of the CJ undermine judicial independence and impartiality, represent an abuse of power, and create a conflict of interest. To the petitioner, the actions of the CJ meet the threshold of “stated misbehavior” and “incompetence” as outlined in Article 146(1).
The petion as summarized below present important matters for interllectual debate but the fear is that it may turn into one of the usual political twists and banter by communcators of the major political party and students of law may miss the opportunity to learn on this all important constititonal matter at such a time as this.
The petition does not specify what was said about each administrative action, but it does detail several administrative actions taken by the Chief Justice that the petitioner believes demonstrate “stated misbehavior” and warrant her removal. Here are the actions cited in the petition:
- The Chief Justice requested the appointment of five specific justices to the Supreme Court. The petitioner claims that the Chief Justice did not consult with the Judicial Council before making this request and that this action constitutes an abuse of power. The petitioner further argues that this action “compromises the constitutional framework designed to prevent undue influence and maintain judicial impartiality.”
- The Chief Justice reconstitutes panels for the hearing of cases without providing justification. The petition lists several instances in which the Chief Justice allegedly reconstituted panels without a valid reason. The petitioner claims this constitutes “arbitrary removal of Justices” and is an abuse of the Chief Justice’s power.
- The Chief Justice issued administrative guidelines without proper constitutional authority. The petition argues that the Chief Justice violated articles 144(2), 157(2), and 159 of the 1992 Constitution by issuing administrative guidelines without the advice of the Judicial Council or approval from the president. The petitioner claims this constitutes a “clear and consistent disregard for the Constitution.”
- The Chief Justice usurped the functions of the Rules of Court Committee. The petition argues that the Chief Justice issued practice directions that should have been issued by the Rules of Court Committee. According to the petition, this action demonstrates the Chief Justice’s “utter contempt for due process, rule of law, and the clearly laid out process for issuing Practice Directions.”
The petition repeatedly emphasizes that these actions demonstrate a disregard for the Constitution and undermine the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
It is my hope that this petition will be given the needed attention and treated with fairness as also for the parties involved but not be used as time to settle scores.