Shining Stars of Ghana petition
The Shining Stars of Ghana, in their petition, essentially claim that “on 15 October 2024, honourable Alexander Afenyo Markin invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 2(10 (b) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.
“The plaintiff’s invocation was activated by a dispute surrounding the filing of nominations by some Members of Parliament (MPs) intending to contest the impending 7 December 2024 general elections either under the tickets of different parties or as independent candidates.
“Among the issues set down by the plaintiff for determination (emphasis on issue 7 for the purpose of this petition) is: whether or not the Speaker of Parliament was in breach of the rules of natural justice (i.e. Audi alteram partem rule) in declaring these four parliamentary seats vacant without giving the four affected Members of Parliament a hearing.
“In our opinion, the Chief Justice who presided over the suit to determine whether or not the Speaker of Parliament was in breach of the rules of natural justice rather breached the same rules in the process of making such determination, which amounts to incompetence.
“Our claim is substantiated by the ruling of Afenyo v Speaker of Parliament and Attorney General (Writ No J1/02/2025) dated 12 November 2024, in which the court stated that “Notably, the 1st Defendant filed no processes in answer to this action.” Our understanding is that at the time of ruling on the above suit, the court had no affidavit from the Speaker of Parliament, being the 1st Defendant.
“The Court also stated that: “However, a further step taken two days after the issuance of this writ, the 1st Defendant issued a statement captured in the Official Report on Parliamentary Debates of 17 October 2024.
“In the first ten pages of that official report, the 1st defendant elaborately delivered a response to a statement made by the Honourable Minority Leader in which he recognized that he was making a formal response in relation to a matter of significant Parliamentary and constitutional importance.
“He said that he had been called on to follow precedent and declare vacant, the seats of four Members of Parliament pursuant to Article 97(1) (g) and (h) of the Constitution because certain members of Parliament had taken actions that contravene the provision of article 97(1)(g) and article 97(1)(h).
“The above statement by the court confirms our claim that the court had no affidavit from the 1st defendant before ruling on the matter. Our opinion is further substantiated by another statement by the court in the same ruling that; “Both the Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant filed their Statements of Case which in essence aligned with the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff in the writ.:” with reference to the above statement, there was no Legal Argument made by the 1st Defendant during court proceedings pursuant to the ruling.
“We are of the view that the Speaker’s decision does not meet the threshold of irreparable harm upon which the court grants orders of stay of execution without hearing him. We hold on to that view because those Members of Parliament who might have been affected by the Speaker’s ruling could seek legal redress and reverse whatever privileges and rights were denied them.
“We further express our opinion on the ruling of the Speaker’s application that the Chief Justice who presided over the above Application breached the rules of natural justice, which has been raised to a constitutional right in Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. However, such a major breach by the Chief Justice, in our opinion, amounts to incompetence.”
CJ Response on Shining Stars
The Chief Justice, in her response to the first petition to the President on Monday, 7 April 2025, stated as follows: “On 17 December 2024, one Professor Asare presented a petition on inter alia, this same issue, to the President of the Republic.
“He sought the same relief sought by the current petitioner, thereby invoking the process set out under article 146 for the removal of superior court Justices, including the Chief Justice.
“Your Excellency, the then President, His Excellency Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, referred the petition to the Council of State, after requesting the responses of the Chief Justice. I submitted my response to the President.
“The President, in consultation with the Council of State, conducted a consideration of whether the petition on this subject matter raises a prima facie case for removal of the Chief Justice.
“The conclusion of the determination of the President, in consultation with the Council of State, on this subject matter found on page 8, therefore, was that ‘No provision of the Constitution or law has been breached.
“The Petitioner has failed to establish any misbehavior or incompetence on the part of the Chief Justice to warrant her removal from office under this charge. Accordingly, this allegation is without any basis and is, therefore, dismissed.
“Respectfully, this consideration of the President and the Council of State was arrived at after considering the same facts and issues raised by the petitioner herein and the fact that my recommendations rested on the established practice articulated by the Supreme Court in the GBA case.
“It is further respectfully submitted that the rule not to try anyone twice on the same facts and question in the same forum is an entrenched rule of our jurisdiction.
“It is administered in civil law within the doctrine of res judicata, arising from subject matter or issue estoppel. The legal foundation for this protection from double jeopardy is also found in criminal justice and is administered within the plea of ‘autrefois convict’ or ‘autrefois acquit’.
“To the extent that this same august constitutional forum created purposely to resolve issues regarding the initial review of a Petition against any Chief Justice of the realm has concluded a determination on this issue, it is my appeal that the issue should be considered to be res judicata.”
In response to the second complaint, the Chief Justice responded as follows: “The petitioner questions the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Afenyo Markin v Speaker of Parliament and Attorney General Suit No J1/02/2025.
“He complained that, based on the facts and issues and the ruling of the court, the Chief Justice who presided over the suit was in breach of the rules of natural justice.
“Humbly, the Petition misses two critical points. The hearing and decisions complained about are the decisions of the Supreme Court and not the decisions of the Chief Justice.
“The Supreme Court is always composed of not fewer than five Justices, for the exercise of its judicial functions under article 128 of the 1992 Constitution, except when its work is executed by a single Justice of the court under article 134.
“In the conduct of the work of the Supreme Court, the presiding Judge, whether the Chief Justice or another senior member of the court, is not the court, and none of the Judges who participate in a decision can be singled out for criticism of the legal import or effect of the court’s work.
“At the end of proceedings by each panel of the Supreme Court, all Judges sign the record created, indicating their concurrence in the record of the court. Article 127 on Independence of the Judiciary also provides:
“127 (3) A Justice of a Superior Court, or any person exercising judicial power, shall not be liable to any action or suit for any act or omission by him in the exercise of the judicial power.
“It is therefore humbly submitted that the Chief Justice cannot be subject to the onerous procedure of being removed from office on account of the opinion of the Petitioner regarding the quality of the Supreme Court’s decision. This is especially so when judicial decisions may be re-examined only through judicial processes that are provided for by law,” the response of the Chief Justice read.
