This suit is speculative and frivolous– AG fights CJ suspension challenge

The Office of the Attorney General (AG) is defending President John Mahama’s decision to suspend Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo. The AG dismissed a legal challenge as speculative, frivolous, and an abuse of the judicial process.

In an affidavit filed at the Supreme Court, the AG opposed an injunction from the Centre for Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems (CenCES). The AG urged the court to strike out parts of CenCES's application. These parts were described as unconstitutional and lacking value.

CenCES is a civil society group. They want to stop the President's investigation into Chief Justice Torkornoo. They argue that this process violates the 1992 Constitution.

The group claims that the President did not follow proper procedures in response to three petitions for Justice Torkornoo’s removal. They believe this undermines fairness, equality, and administrative justice.

CenCES cited breaches of Articles 17, 23, 296, and several clauses under Article 146. They argue that without a prima facie case, the President’s action is null and void.

However, the Attorney General firmly opposed this view. The AG asked the court to reject CenCES's injunction request and let the committee continue its work.

The AG specifically requested that certain paragraphs of CenCES's affidavit be struck out. These paragraphs contained inadmissible materials related to protected in-camera proceedings under Article 146.

The AG argued that some evidence attached to CenCES's application lacked authenticity. Even if considered, it was more prejudicial than helpful.

According to the AG, these materials breach confidentiality rules regarding impeachment processes for a Chief Justice. Therefore, they should not be entertained by the court.

Additionally, the Attorney General accused CenCES of making “exceedingly speculative” claims. The AG suggested that their suit aimed to disrupt a lawful constitutional process.