Petition against Chief Justice lawful — Lawyers

The process to potentially remove Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo has sparked diverse opinions. Lawyers and constitutional law experts shared their views with the Daily Graphic. They generally agree that the process is lawful but call for reforms to protect judicial independence.

Among those interviewed were Albert Quashigah, a legal practitioner and lecturer, and journalists like Samson Lardy Anyenini and Martin Kpebu.

**Statement from the President**

Last Tuesday, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, the President's Spokesperson, announced important news. He stated that President John Dramani Mahama sent three petitions to the Council of State. These petitions seek Justice Torkornoo's removal. This action aligns with Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.

Article 146 outlines how Justices of Superior Courts can be removed. It also applies to positions similar to Justices, such as members of the Electoral Commission and CHRAJ.

**Constitutional Process**

Martin Kpebu noted that while this move may cause unease in the judiciary, it follows legal protocols. The Council of State will determine if there is a prima facie case against Justice Torkornoo. This decision will guide whether an investigative committee should be formed.

Kpebu emphasized that evidence is crucial for any removal. If no evidence exists, Ghanaians would oppose her removal without justification. He also stressed the need for protecting judicial independence through constitutional reforms initiated by President Mahama.

Kpebu argued that allowing the President to appoint Justices undermines judicial independence. He suggested reforms should remove this power from the President.

**Regulations Needed**

Samson Lardy Anyenini highlighted a need for clearer regulations regarding Article 146. He pointed out that while Article 146 provides a framework, it lacks detailed procedures for handling petitions.

He referenced a Supreme Court case which indicated that specific laws are necessary to implement Article 146 effectively.

**Accountability in Judiciary**

Albert Quashigah stated that this process does not violate the Constitution; rather, it ensures accountability among judges. He noted that constitutional framers anticipated situations where judges might misbehave and need accountability measures.

Quashigah emphasized that due process is essential in impeachment cases. The Chief Justice must have an opportunity to defend herself during these proceedings.

He referred again to the Frank Agyei Twum vs Attorney-General case as providing protections for judges facing impeachment processes.

**Removal Process Explained**

According to Article 146, a Superior Court Justice can only be removed for misconduct or incompetence. If a petition seeks removal of the Chief Justice, it goes first to the President who then consults with the Council of State on establishing a prima facie case.

If such a case exists, a five-member committee will be formed by the President in consultation with the Council of State. This committee will include two Supreme Court Justices and three non-lawyers who are not part of Parliament or Council of State members.

The committee will investigate and recommend whether or not to remove the Chief Justice based on their findings. The President must follow this recommendation when making his final decision.