CDD boss calls for public disclosure of Chief Justice removal findings

Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh, Executive Director of the Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), has called for urgent reforms to the constitutional procedures for removing justices of the superior courts. His concerns come in the wake of the recent suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo.

Chief Justice Torkornoo was suspended by President John Dramani Mahama on April 22, 2025, after a prima facie case was established from three separate petitions seeking her removal. The decision, taken in accordance with Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution, followed the President’s consultation with the Council of State. Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, the most senior Supreme Court judge, has since been appointed Acting Chief Justice.

Although a five-member committee has been formed to investigate the allegations, the lack of transparency regarding the nature of the petitions and supporting evidence has sparked growing concern among legal experts and civil society organisations.

In a detailed critique, Prof. Prempeh took issue with Article 146, the constitutional provision that outlines the procedure for removing superior court justices, including the Chief Justice.

“I have at least two problems with Article 146 in its present form,” he said. “First is the secrecy or lack of transparency concerning the removal petition. Even if the removal proceedings must be held in camera, I believe that, at the minimum, the findings and outcome of the proceedings, including the grounds and supporting evidence behind the removal petition, must be made public after the fact.”

He emphasised the importance of transparency to maintaining public trust in the judiciary. “The public must not be kept in the dark as to why a removal petition failed or succeeded,” he stated. “In the interest of justice, I believe the grounds and evidence in support of the committee’s decision, whichever way it goes, must be made public, so that the public, too, can judge for themselves as to whether justice was served in the matter.”

Prof. Prempeh also questioned the composition of the committee investigating such high-level judicial officers, particularly when the Chief Justice is involved. “Where the removal petition pertains to a Chief Justice, no sitting judge should be included in the five-person removal committee that is constituted to hear the petition,” he argued. “None of the CJ’s judicial peers must be made to sit in judgment on a removal petition involving their judicial colleague or ‘boss’, as they are likely to have an interest in the outcome.”

To ensure impartiality, he recommended appointing retired judges or seasoned public servants to serve on such committees. He further proposed reforms that would reduce presidential involvement in the process.

“Better to keep a President out of the removal process, except to implement, after the fact, the final outcome of the process as determined by an independent removal committee,” Prof. Prempeh concluded.

His remarks add to a growing chorus of voices urging for constitutional and institutional reforms that will safeguard judicial independence and reinforce public confidence in the rule of law.

Source: dailymailgh.com