The Member of Parliament (MP) for Old Tafo in the Ashanti region, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, has filed a suit at the Supreme Court challenging President John Dramani Mahama’s suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.
The legislator is asking the apex court to reverse the suspension on the basis that President Mahama had violated due process because of a pending court application.
In the writ filed Thursday, April 24, the MP is seeking the following reliefs:
- An order restraining any step or action from being purportedly taken as part of the processes for the removal of the Chief Justice under Article 146 or in any manner until the hearing and final determination of the instant action.
- An order suspending the operation of the warrant for suspension of the Chief Justice purportedly issued by the President under Article 146 or in any manner until the hearing and final determination of the instant action.
- Any further order(s) as the Honourable Court may seem meet.
President Mahama asked the foremost judicial official to step aside following the establishment of a five-member committee to investigate three petitions filed against her. Myjoyonline.com understands two additional petitions have since been filed to get the Chief Justice out of office.
The presidency, which announced the suspension on Tuesday, said the action was in compliance with constitutional provisions and follows consultations with the Council of State.
The president cited Article 146(6) of the Constitution, which mandates the establishment of a committee to probe allegations against a superior court judge if a prima facie case is established.
According to the statement, President Mahama determined that sufficient grounds exist to warrant further inquiry.
However, the Old Tafo MP believes President Mahama violated due process.
It would be recalled that he had earlier filed an application raising red flags over the whole process when President Mahama forwarded the petitions to the Council of State at a time when the Chief Justice had not been notified of the petitions against her.
In the view of the plaintiff, who is being represented by Godfred Dame, the immediate past Attorney-General, a Chief Justice ought to be alerted of the petitions to give a response before the President could consult the Council of State.
The latest court process highlighted that the action of the president is “indicative of complete disregard for the rule of law and due process, whilst the application for interlocutory injunction was pending and had not been heard or determined…”
The motion further states that, “the consultations initiated by the President with the Council of State to determine whether a prima facie case is disclosed in the three petitions against the Chief Justice, when the Chief Justice had not been notified of the petitions, was in flagrant violation of the Constitution and renders the whole process under article 146 null, void and of no effect”.
In the view of the plaintiff, “the entire proceedings triggered by the president, including the establishment of a committee to inquire into the petitions against the Chief Justice, are a farce and the product of a pre-conceived orchestration to unconstitutionally remove the Chief Justice from office.”
