Keypoints:
- President Mahama suspends Chief Justice over misconduct petitions
- Five-member constitutional committee begins formal inquiry
- Government insists suspension follows due legal process
IN a seismic development shaking Ghana’s legal and political establishment, President John Dramani Mahama has suspended the Chief Justice of the Republic, triggering a high-level constitutional investigation into allegations of misconduct.
The decision follows the receipt of three formal petitions and a subsequent determination by the President and the Council of State that a prima facie case exists. Acting under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, the President has constituted a five-member committee to probe the matter. The Chief Justice, whose name is being withheld pending formal communication, will remain suspended by presidential warrant until the investigative process concludes.
Though expected in some political quarters, the official confirmation of the suspension has raised the temperature within both legal and political circles, with observers warning that the move could set a new precedent in Ghana’s evolving constitutional democracy.
‘No presumption of guilt’ – Government defends action
Government spokesperson Felix Kwakye Ofosu addressed public concerns at a media briefing, stressing that the President’s actions were in line with constitutional obligations, not political expediency.
‘The President has not said the Chief Justice is guilty of any of the claims. A prima facie case means the allegations merit investigation—not that they have been proven,’ Kwakye Ofosu stated.
He outlined a careful process undertaken by the executive: upon receiving the petitions, the President served copies to the Chief Justice and invited a formal response. That response was then reviewed alongside the allegations in consultation with the Council of State. ‘Only after this multi-stage review did the President decide to proceed with the committee,’ he added.
The Chief Justice will now be given the opportunity to answer all allegations before an impartial body, with the full rights to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
Committee composition inspires cautious confidence
In line with Article 146(4), the investigative committee comprises two justices of the Supreme Court and three eminent individuals from outside the legal profession. The two justices named are Gabriel Pwamang and Samuel Aseidu—senior figures known for their judicial temperance and professionalism.
They are joined by former Auditor-General Daniel Domelevo, who earned a reputation for standing firm against corruption during his tenure; Major (Rtd) Flora Delles, a senior officer of the Ghana Armed Forces; and Professor James Sephaka, a widely respected sociologist from the University of Ghana.
Kwakye Ofosu said the composition reflected not only constitutional compliance but a deliberate effort to ensure public trust: ‘These are individuals who command integrity and are insulated from partisan influence. Their backgrounds offer a strong foundation for objective inquiry.’
Legal experts say the diversity of expertise and the absence of direct political appointees in the majority of the panel may help safeguard its credibility.
Mystery surrounds content of petitions
Though the public has been informed of the suspension, the government has declined to share the nature of the allegations. Kwakye Ofosu refused to confirm or deny widely circulating claims on social media that the petitions relate to financial irregularities or controversial judicial panels formed by the Chief Justice in politically charged cases.
‘The rules of confidentiality are strict. Only the President, the Council of State, and the committee members have access to the petition details,’ he explained. ‘However, natural justice has been followed—the Chief Justice was informed and responded in full before any decision was made.’
This secrecy, however justified by law, has fuelled speculation in political circles. Some ruling party insiders have framed the suspension as an act of judicial cleansing, while others—particularly in opposition ranks—argue that the process risks politicising the judiciary and opening the door to executive overreach.
Historical first for Ghana’s Fourth Republic
This marks the first time in Ghana’s current democratic dispensation that a sitting Chief Justice has been suspended through the Article 146 process. While similar petitions have been submitted in past decades, they either failed to meet the constitutional threshold or were dismissed before reaching this level of formal inquiry.
Observers say this moment represents a pivotal stress test for Ghana’s judiciary—an institution long regarded as the stabilising force amid often-turbulent political transitions.
‘The judiciary has historically enjoyed insulation from partisan interference, even during times of executive-legislative friction,’ said one constitutional scholar. ‘This case will test whether that buffer still holds, or whether we are entering a new era of judicial vulnerability.’
Suspension without removal—but with uncertainty
It is important to emphasise that the Chief Justice has not been removed from office, only suspended from performing official duties. Article 146(10) provides the President with discretion to issue such a suspension by warrant, and Article 146(11) allows for the revocation of that suspension at any time if circumstances change.
The judiciary remains operational under the leadership of Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, the senior-most judge on the Supreme Court, who now assumes the role of acting Chief Justice.
There is no constitutionally mandated deadline for the committee’s proceedings. With three distinct petitions to examine, the inquiry could extend over several months. Each petition will be considered on its own merits, with individual hearings, testimonies, and evidence assessments. Legal observers warn that prolonged uncertainty could have a chilling effect on judicial morale and public confidence.
Political repercussions loom large
The political ramifications of this suspension could be profound. Some lawmakers have already warned that if the process is perceived to be influenced by political motives, it may erode not only the authority of the judiciary but also the legitimacy of the executive.
Opposition figures have recalled past criticisms of the Chief Justice by senior government officials, and some see this move as a culmination of those tensions. Others counter that allowing such speculation to override legal scrutiny would weaken the principles of accountability and good governance.
‘Yes, it’s uncomfortable to see a Chief Justice face this process,’ said one retired judge. ‘But if there is credible evidence of wrongdoing, it is not just permissible—it is necessary. The judiciary must be accountable too.’
The road ahead
As the committee begins its closed-door work, the eyes of the nation—and of constitutional watchers across Africa—are firmly fixed on Ghana.
The country, long celebrated for its rule of law and democratic stability, now faces a moment of reckoning. The legitimacy of the process will rest on the transparency of its outcomes, the fairness of its procedures, and the ability of institutions to act without fear or favour.
‘The future of our judiciary depends on this moment being handled with courage and care,’ said a legal analyst. ‘If we get it wrong, we risk politicising justice. If we get it right, we strengthen our democracy.’
0 Comments