10 hard truths about judicial resignation after prima facie misconduct – Martin Amidu lays it bare

Former Attorney General Martin A. B. K. Amidu has written a strong critique. He argues that a superior court justice should not resign after a prima facie case is established in a removal petition.

Amidu draws on constitutional principles and historical precedents. He warns of serious consequences if presidents accept such resignations without due process. His main point is clear: the Constitution requires accountability, not shortcuts.

Here are the key takeaways from Amidu’s argument:

1. Presidential Acceptance of Resignation
A president cannot accept a justice's resignation during an inquiry. Doing so violates Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.

2. Suspicion on Executive Intentions
Accepting a resignation may suggest the President is helping the justice evade accountability.

3. Media Leaks Undermine Integrity
Amidu criticizes media leaks about petitions and responses as unconstitutional attempts to sway public opinion.

4. Undermining Petitioners' Rights
Calls for resignation before an inquiry ends mock citizens' rights to petition for judicial removal.

5. Judicial Exceptionalism Threatens Democracy
Arguing judges should avoid scrutiny during inquiries is undemocratic, according to Amidu.

6. Due Process Is Essential
Once a prima facie case exists, the inquiry must continue unless abandoned by the petitioner.

7. Dangers of Mid-Inquiry Resignations
Amidu recalls Justice Kweku Amua-Sekyi's 1998 resignation, which halted an inquiry and led to questionable actions later.

8. Georgina Wood's Firm Stance
Chief Justice Georgina Wood denied resignations from twelve judges in 2015 after finding prima facie cases against them.

9. Equal Treatment Under Law
Even if a Chief Justice faces removal, due process must be followed regarding resignations during inquiries.

10. Trust in Democracy at Stake
Allowing resignations before committee reports could harm public trust and encourage future misconduct, warns Amidu.