Thaddeus Sory: To thine own self be true - let the law work

On the evening of Tuesday, March 25, 2025, reports surfaced on social media. President John Mahama forwarded three petitions for the Chief Justice's removal to the Council of State. This action follows Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution. The article states that when a petition concerns the Chief Justice, the President must consult with the Council of State. A committee will then be appointed to investigate.

Two days later, on Thursday, March 27, at 9:20 AM, Vincent Ekow Assafuah filed an action at the Supreme Court. He challenged the President’s referral of these petitions to the Council of State.

Mr. Assafuah argues that Articles 146 and others require notification to the Chief Justice. He claims she should provide comments before any referral is made to the Council of State.

This raises several questions:

1. How did Mr. Assafuah know that the Chief Justice was not consulted?
2. Did she inform him directly about this?
3. Was there any media report confirming her lack of consultation?

Godfred Dame represents Mr. Assafuah in this matter. As musician Joseph from Culture says, “This is neither a jigsaw nor a puzzle.” Things are becoming clearer.

Only Article 146(6) matters in deciding if consultation was needed with the Chief Justice before referring to the Council of State.

Article 146(6) clearly states that for removal petitions concerning the Chief Justice, consultation with the Council is required.

In Agyei Twum v. Attorney General & Akwetey, Justice Date-Bah stated that a prima facie case must be established against her first.

However, this case did not specify how to determine prima facie status. What is clear is that consulting with the Council is necessary.

The President's decision aligns strictly with constitutional requirements.

Several questions reveal flaws in Mr. Assafuah's suit:

1. Is it unconstitutional for the President to refer these petitions?
2. Isn’t this referral a logical first step for determining prima facie status?
3. Shouldn’t he engage with the Council as mandated?
4. Does this referral prevent giving her a chance to respond later?

In his first petition response, President Mahama suggested prior consultation occurred before determining no prima facie case existed against her.

Yet, his letter does not show that she was asked for comments before this determination was made.

The Chief Justice believes in following legal processes without presumptive protection; every Ghanaian shares this belief.

The law requires ongoing consultation between the President and Council of State regarding these petitions.

Let this process unfold naturally; trust in their esteemed legal minds as you have always asked us to do so.

To Proxy Assafuah: consider a lesson from Acts of Apostles chapter five about persistence despite intimidation faced by Peter and his fellow apostles.

When arrested and brought before High Priest Gamaliel, he offered wise advice:

He reminded them about Theudas and Judas who falsely claimed divine backing but ultimately failed.
Gamaliel advised them: “If their work is from men, it will fail; if it’s from God, you cannot stop it.”

So let it be known! Leave those petitioners alone; if their cause is just and true, no court can overturn it.