You can’t pick and choose which petitions to act on—Pratt to Mahama

Veteran journalist Kwesi Pratt has raised concerns about the President's actions. He questions the inconsistency and possible bias in handling petitions for public officer removals.

Pratt referred to the President’s refusal to act on a petition against the Chief Justice. He asked, “If the President must act as a conveyor belt, why not here? He said it lacked merit. So which is it?”

He noted that in Charlotte Osei's case, the President had to forward the petition. However, he ignored the petition regarding the Chief Justice. This suggests bias in his decisions.

Pratt examined constitutional language to counter claims of absolute presidential discretion. He stated that some actions stem from constitutional obligations. The President has no middle ground; these are duties imposed by the Constitution.

He challenged claims that everything is at the President’s discretion. “Yes, ‘may’ appears in Article 146, but so does ‘shall.’ ‘Shall’ means there’s no choice,” he explained. The President is required to act, not just permitted.

Pratt's comments come as legal experts and civil society question the selective responses of the presidency regarding high-ranking judicial officers.