Under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, public officers occupying certain high constitutional positions can only be removed from office through a carefully structured process designed to balance accountability with fairness.
Central to this framework is the requirement that a prima facie case be established before a full investigative committee is constituted (see Agyei-Twum v Attorney-General [1998-99] SCGLR 732).
This threshold determination is not a trial, nor an inquiry. It is a constitutional filter—an initial check to determine whether the petition is serious enough to warrant a full investigation.
And because it is purely preliminary and administrative, the public officer petitioned against has no constitutional right to be heard at this stage. This is deliberate.
Allowing a response before a prima facie determination would not only collapse the two-stage process into a single, premature inquiry—it would invite a back-and-forth: a response, a counter-response, a rebuttal—all of which are the hallmarks of an inquiry.
But under Article 146, only the committee, if constituted, has the authority to inquire. Until then, the petitioned officer is entitled to silence, not because their voice doesn’t matter, but because the constitutional design insists on separating filtering from adjudication.
Moreover, permitting the officer to see or respond to the petition too early would risk politicizing the process and compromising its integrity. If every petition triggered a response, then every response could invite a counter-response, making a mockery of the gatekeeping role that the Constitution entrusts to the Chief Justice (146(3)) or the President (146(6) and Agyei Twum).
To be clear: the right to be heard is preserved—but it is only triggered after a prima facie case is found and a committee is established. That is the proper forum for inquiry, evidence, and defence. Any attempt to open that door prematurely is a distortion of the process and a threat to its constitutional safeguards.
This clarity is essential not only to protect individuals in public office from vexatious or politically motivated petitions, but also to uphold the integrity and credibility of the removal process itself.
The Constitution does not permit trial by ambush, nor does it allow procedural shortcuts. Until a prima facie case is established, there is no case to answer—and no hearing to be had.
This post does not constitute legal advice and is not intended to refer to, comment on, or influence any case—whether pending, threatened, or imagined.
It is finished.
Da Yie![
Kwaku Azar write