That anyone will find anything remotely close to a prima facie case based on these petitions should leave every right thinking Ghanaian worried, very worried.
1. How can a decision made by a CJ as a member of a panel made up of no fewer than 5 justices present a basis for a determination of a prima facie case. How about the other justices including some of whom are now chairing the supposed committee?
2. that certain administrative decisions including, in the words of the petitioner “sacking a judicial service staff who was not coming to work etc “ be a ground for removal. Why won’t those who have been wronged by the administrative decisions (including some taken a decade before she became CJ) take the necessary legal steps to be reinstated or compensated for wrongdul dismissal? How does this present a prima facie case or ground for removal?
3. That CJ is politically exposed. Whatever that means. Then we shall never have a CJ who is not politically exposed. The process of appointment of CJ includes you and I , parliament , judicial council, GBA, right up to the president. Every judge( lower and higher courts) have their appointment either approved or made by the President. Magistrates included. So going by that argument, then every judge in this country is politically exposed.
4. And you have a president who has notified us of his agenda to interfere with the independence of the judiciary in advance and we see this as a genuine case for a ground for removal, against the frivolity of the petitions.
5. You have people skewing the narrative. Quoting a supposed page 37 of the travel policy of CJs. Such lies. Take a look at the said travel policy if the CJ and justices of the superior court formulated in alignment with article 71 of the constitution and on the recommendation of the relevant emolument committee . You will find that page 2, Clause A addresses that. The policy provides at paras 9 and 10. That the CJ shall undertake unlimited official travels with either his/her spouse or other person of his/her choice in a year fully funded by the judicial service. By Clause B, the CJ is also entitled to two personal travels paid for. I don’t want to wade into the travel entourage of the heads of the other arms of government. Is the judiciary any mean arm of government to be denigrated in such manner ?
I reiterate my position that this is not a Gertrude Torkonoo fight. It’s the fight of every judge in this country, a fight of the 3 judges whose death are being ridiculed and a fight of our democracy.
Ghanaians should and will know the full facts.
The writer, Hon. Diana Asonaba Dapaah is a former Deputy Attorney-General
