Prima Facie claim inadequate in Chief Justice’s removal – Dame

Godfred Yeboah Dame represents suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo. He argued for an injunction against her removal proceedings.

On May 28, he appeared before the Supreme Court. Dame claimed no proper prima facie determination was made regarding the petitions. He noted that the President's letter only briefly mentioned a prima facie case.

Dame said this lack of detail fails to meet constitutional requirements. Article 146(1) of the 1992 Constitution outlines these requirements. He argued that not sharing this determination denied Torkornoo a fair hearing.

“It is chilling,” he stated, “that the Attorney General defends a process where the affected person is left in the dark.” Dame also questioned the investigative committee's composition. He highlighted Justice Gabriel Pwamang’s inclusion as problematic since he is named as a witness.

Dame challenged other committee members' eligibility, claiming some did not take their oaths. In response, Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai defended the legality of the process. He argued many of Dame’s claims had already been decided by the court.

Srem-Sai referenced the Vincent Ekow Assafuah case to support his argument. He stated that since there was no part-hearing, reconstitution of the panel was allowed. “It is surprising,” Srem-Sai remarked, “that Dame would advance arguments already ruled on.”

Regarding prima facie determinations, Srem-Sai cited a recent ruling. This ruling stated such determinations alone do not justify an interlocutory injunction. He also addressed confidentiality issues, noting that in-camera hearings are required by law.

Srem-Sai emphasized that only proven bias invalidates a panelist’s role, not mere assumptions about it. He concluded by clarifying that delays or omissions do not invalidate someone’s role if they have taken their oath.