In a legal move being described as one of the most consequential constitutional cases in Ghana’s recent
history, the Chief Justice of the Republic has filed an action at the Supreme Court challenging the legality
of proceedings initiated for her removal from office by President John Mahama.
The Chief Justice, who is the head of the Judiciary—the only constitutionally independent arm of
government—is seeking redress over what she characterizes as a series of egregious constitutional
violations, which she argues undermine the very principle of judicial independence.
According to the facts laid out in her statement of case, the Chief Justice was first made aware of the
removal petitions not through formal notification, but via a presidential press release issued on March
25, 2025, and disseminated widely by the media. The press statement disclosed that the President had
received three petitions seeking her removal and had commenced consultations with the Council of
State under Article 146 of the Constitution.
The Chief Justice contends that she was neither notified of the petitions nor given an opportunity to
respond prior to the initiation of such grave constitutional steps. She formally requested copies of the
petitions on March 27, which were provided two days later. In her responses, she contested their merit
on legal and factual grounds.
However, despite a pending suit by Member of Parliament Vincent Ekow Assafuah, who had sought the
intervention of the Supreme Court to halt the process, the President went ahead to declare a prima
facie case had been established against the Chief Justice on April 22. That same day, the Chief Justice
was formally informed by letter that a five-member investigative committee had been constituted and
that she was suspended pending the inquiry.
The Chief Justice has raised serious concerns over the legality and impartiality of the committee’s
composition. She points out that two members, Justices Gabriel Pwamang and Samuel Adibu-Asiedu,
had previously adjudicated on related matters involving the petitioners or the constitutional questions
now before the Court—circumstances she says disqualify them due to the constitutional requirement of
impartiality.
Moreover, she notes that several members of the committee had not taken the required oath under
Article 156(1) of the Constitution before commencing their work, rendering any proceedings held prior
to the oath-taking constitutionally void.
She further criticises the lack of transparency in the President’s prima facie determination, which she
describes as “arbitrary” and “devoid of judicial reasoning.” The surrounding circumstances—including
media leaks, a government-aligned opinion poll calling for her removal, and the general tenor of public
discourse—indicate to her a politically motivated effort to remove the head of the Judiciary, a move she
argues threatens the constitutional balance of power.
The Chief Justice is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 2(1) and 130(1)
of the Constitution, citing violations of due process and judicial independence. Her legal team references
landmark cases such as Agyei-Twum v. Attorney-General, Justice Dery v. Tiger Eye P.I., and Ghana Bar
Association v. Attorney-General, to support their position that constitutional safeguards for the Judiciary
are under siege.
Her case, described as “not merely a procedural objection but a constitutional defence of the
independence of the Judiciary,” urges the Supreme Court to see beyond personalities and temporary
politics. In a philosophical appeal invoking John Rawls’ “veil of ignorance,” the Chief Justice invites the
Court to consider the precedent it sets—not just for this case, but for all future occupants of the bench.
“This moment,” the statement says, “presents a rare and critical opportunity for the Supreme Court to
reaffirm Ghana’s commitment to judicial independence and constitutional governance.”
With the sesquicentennial of the Supreme Court Ordinance of 1876 approaching, many legal scholars
see this case as a defining moment in Ghana’s constitutional history—one that could either reaffirm or
redefine the boundaries of executive power over the Judiciary.
