On the evening of Tuesday, March 25, 2025, social media reports indicated that President John Mahama had forwarded three petitions for the removal of the Chief Justice to the Council of State.
This step is a constitutional requirement under Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution, which states: “Where the petition is for the removal of the Chief Justice, the President shall, acting in consultation with the Council of State, appoint a committee consisting of two Justices of the Supreme Court, one of whom shall be appointed Chairman by the President, and three other persons who are not members of the Council of State, nor members of Parliament, nor lawyers.”
Two days later, at 9:20 AM on Thursday, March 27, 2025, the Vincent Ekow Assafuah of Old Tafo, in Kumasi, filed an action at the Supreme Court challenging the President’s referral of the petitions to the Council of State.
Mr. Assafuah argues that the President is required, under Articles 146(1), (2), (4), (6) and (7), 23, 57(3), and 296 of the Constitution, to: “…notify the Chief Justice about a petition for her removal and obtain her comments and responses before referring the petition to the Council of State or commencing consultation with the Council of State.”
This claim raises a number of intriguing questions:
i. How did Mr. Assafuah, within just one day, ascertain that the Chief Justice was not consulted before the petitions were referred to the Council of State?
ii. Did the Chief Justice personally inform him that she was not consulted?
iii. Was there any media report confirming that the Chief Justice had been bypassed in the process?
And Godfred Dame as his lawyer? As the musician Joseph of Culture says, “This is neither a jigsaw nor a puzzle.” Things are falling into place. We either survive together or perish together.
That aside, only Article 146(6) is relevant in determining whether the President was required to seek the Chief Justice’s comments before consulting the Council of State.
Article 146(6), in clear and unambiguous terms, states that when a petition concerns the removal of the Chief Justice, the President must act in consultation with the Council of State.
In Agyei Twum v. Attorney General & Akwetey, Justice Date-Bah, speaking for the Supreme Court, held that just like other Justices of the Superior Courts, a prima facie case must first be established against the Chief Justice before a committee is empaneled to investigate the petition.
However, the Agyei Twum case did not specify how the prima facie determination should be made. What is certain, however, is that the President must act in consultation with the Council of State. The President’s decision to refer the petitions to the Council of State is, therefore, in strict compliance with the Constitution.
The following questions expose the suit for what it is—Much Ado About Nothing:
i. If the Constitution explicitly states that “where the petition is for the removal of the Chief Justice, the President shall act in consultation with the Council of State”, is it unconstitutional for the President to refer the petitions to the Council of State?
ii. Isn’t the referral the first logical step in discussing the prima facie determination and the procedure for it?
iii. Should the President unilaterally decide on the petitions without engaging the Council of State, as mandated?
iv. Does referring the petitions to the Council of State amount to a prima facie determination without giving the Chief Justice a hearing?
v. Does this referral prevent the Chief Justice from later providing her comments on the petitions?
In the first petition, the former President’s response suggested that the Council of State had been consulted before the determination that no prima facie case had been made against the Chief Justice.
Yet, the President’s letter to Prof. Azar does not indicate that the Chief Justice was asked for her comments before that determination was made.
The Chief Justice believes in the law. There is no need for presumptive protection. Every Ghanaian believes in the law.
The law requires that the President act in consultation with the Council of State. That consultation is currently ongoing. Let the process unfold. The Council of State has its own esteemed legal minds—trust them as much as you have always asked us to trust you.
To Proxy Assafuah, let me offer a lesson from the Acts of the Apostles. In Acts 5, Peter and his fellow apostles faced intimidation aimed at silencing their mission. Yet, despite the threats, they persisted in preaching the gospel without seeking legal recourse.
When they were eventually arrested and brought before the High Priest, Gamaliel, a respected Pharisee, offered wise counsel:
He reminded his colleagues of Theudas and Judas, two men who falsely claimed divine backing but ultimately perished. Gamaliel then gave this timeless advice in Acts 5:38-39: “…Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”
So be it, Hon. Mr. Proxy! Leave the petitioners alone, for if their counsel or work be of men, their petitions will come to nought, but if it be of God, and their cause is just, no court action can overthrow it.
Source: Thaddeus Sory
