Former Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Godfred Yeboah Dame has filed a 42-page statement of case on behalf of the Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, challenging the constitutionality of the President’s steps toward the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaba Torkornoo.
Filed on April 9, 2025, the submission forms part of a writ issued on March 27 by Mr. Assafuah, who is seeking a declaration from the Supreme Court that all actions taken by the President in consultation with the Council of State toward the CJ’s removal are null, void, and of no effect.
Godfred Dame argues that the actions of the President amount to a clear breach of the constitutional safeguards meant to protect the Judiciary from political interference.
“Respectfully, there is no justifiable reason for the President to commence the consultation process mandated by Article 146 of the Constitution, and announce it to the world before coming back to ask the Chief Justice for her responses.”
“It is outstandingly bad, shocking and egregiously unfair for the President to announce a trigger of the removal processes of the Chief Justice under Article 146… when he has not even extended the courtesy of informing the Chief Justice,” Dame stated.
The plaintiff contends that the Chief Justice was not allowed to respond to the allegations in the petition presented to the President, a move he says violates the principles of natural justice and due process guaranteed by the 1992 Constitution.
“The right to be notified of charges levelled against one and to be heard on same is a fundamental and inalienable right. That right assumes greater significance in the context of quasi-judicial proceedings,” the statement notes.
Mr. Dame emphasized that the President must notify the Chief Justice and to allow her to respond before any consultation with the Council of State.
“A failure to do so shows complete bad faith and renders the process null, void and of no effect,” he added.
Explaining Ghana’s own constitutional history, Dame warned against a return to practices that once saw the Executive wield excessive power over the Judiciary.
“In 1963, the President dismissed the Chief Justice with the support of two-thirds of Parliament dominated by a single party — a situation very similar to the circumstances Ghana finds itself in now,” he argued.
He urged the Court to be vigilant and submitted, “In a democracy governed by the rule of law, the protection of the Judiciary from undue interference is essential. The Court must insist on strict compliance with Articles 23, 146, and 296 in processes involving the possible removal of the Chief Justice,” Dame submitted.
Mr. Dame also drew comparisons with international judicial systems, asserting that “all advanced legal systems stipulate a rigorous and elaborate procedure for the removal of a judge of a superior court.”
“Even where the legal framework is as scanty as Ghana’s, practice ensures that only through an elaborate mechanism can a Chief Justice be removed” he said.
The plaintiff is invoking the Supreme Court’s powers of judicial review under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the Constitution. He is asking the Court to declare the entire removal process initiated by the President as “null, void, and of no effect.”