Presidential Intervention: President Mahama Forwards Petitions for Chief Justice’s Removal to the Council of State – A Constitutional Perspective
Introduction
On March 25, 2025, the Office of the Presidency of Ghana released a statement announcing that President John Dramani Mahama had received three separate petitions requesting the removal of the Chief Justice. As per Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, the President has forwarded these petitions to the Council of State to commence the necessary consultation process. This development has sparked intense discussions across legal, political, and civil society circles.
The judiciary is often regarded as the last bastion of justice, entrusted with interpreting and upholding the law without bias. The Chief Justice, as the head of the judiciary, plays a crucial role in ensuring judicial independence and upholding the rule of law. Any attempt to remove the Chief Justice is, therefore, a matter of national importance, raising critical questions about governance, legal processes, and the implications for democracy.
In this article, we will explore the role of the Chief Justice, analyze the legal and constitutional procedures involved in their removal, discuss the political ramifications of this move, and examine its broader implications for Ghana’s democracy.
Background of the Chief Justice and the Judiciary
The Role of the Chief Justice in Ghana
The Chief Justice is the highest-ranking judicial officer in Ghana and serves as the head of the judiciary. Their responsibilities include:
-
Overseeing the Supreme Court, which is the final appellate body in Ghana.
-
Supervising lower courts to ensure justice is administered fairly and efficiently.
-
Advising the government on constitutional matters.
-
Swearing in the President and other key officials.
-
Ensuring judicial independence and protecting the integrity of the judiciary.
The office of the Chief Justice is enshrined in the 1992 Constitution, and their appointment is made by the President, subject to parliamentary approval. The Chief Justice serves until the mandatory retirement age or until they resign, die, or are removed through constitutional means.
Ghana’s Judiciary and Democratic Governance
Ghana’s judiciary has historically played a significant role in upholding the nation’s democracy. It has ruled on critical electoral disputes, corruption cases, and human rights issues. Judicial independence is one of the pillars of democratic governance, ensuring that the executive and legislative branches do not overreach their authority.
The attempt to remove a sitting Chief Justice is, therefore, a weighty matter that could have profound consequences on the judiciary’s ability to function independently and impartially.
Details of the Presidential Statement
The official communication from the Office of the President, signed by Felix Kwakye Ofosu, the Spokesperson to the President and Minister for Government Communications, provides limited but crucial details:
-
President Mahama has received three petitions from different individuals or groups calling for the removal of the Chief Justice.
-
The President has forwarded these petitions to the Council of State.
-
This action is in accordance with Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, which outlines the procedure for the removal of superior court judges.
While the statement does not specify the grounds for the petitions, it highlights the beginning of a significant constitutional process.
Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution: The Legal Process of Removal
Article 146 of the Ghanaian Constitution provides the framework for the removal of justices of the superior courts, including the Chief Justice. The key provisions include:
-
A petition for removal must be submitted to the President.
-
The President, upon receiving such a petition, is required to forward it to the Council of State.
-
The Council of State reviews the petition and advises the President on whether there is a prima facie case.
-
If a case is established, a special committee is formed to investigate the allegations.
-
The committee’s findings determine whether the Chief Justice should be removed or cleared of the allegations.
The rationale behind this process is to prevent arbitrary removal of judges and to uphold the judiciary’s independence.
Implications of the Petitions
The submission of three separate petitions suggests that multiple parties are concerned about the Chief Justice’s conduct. However, the implications of this move extend beyond legal technicalities:
1. Judicial Independence Under Threat?
If the process is perceived as politically motivated, it could undermine the judiciary’s credibility. The Chief Justice must remain independent to ensure fair rulings, particularly in cases involving the government.
2. Impact on Public Confidence in the Judiciary
The judiciary is often seen as the defender of constitutional rights. Any attempts to remove the Chief Justice without clear, transparent justifications could lead to a loss of public trust in the legal system.
3. Political Tensions and Divisions
Given Ghana’s polarized political landscape, this issue may deepen divisions between political parties, with some supporting the move and others opposing it.
Political Ramifications
Opposition Party Reactions
The opposition parties will likely challenge this development, questioning the legitimacy of the petitions. They may argue that the move is an attempt to weaken the judiciary, especially if the Chief Justice has ruled against the government in key cases.
Parliamentary Influence
While Parliament does not play a direct role in the removal process, MPs may debate the issue extensively, further amplifying the political tension.
Impact on Upcoming Elections
This controversy could influence public perception ahead of elections, with voters questioning the executive’s motives.
The Council of State’s Role in Governance
The Council of State is an advisory body that provides guidance to the President on constitutional matters. In this case, its role is to determine whether the petitions warrant further investigation.
The Council’s decision will set a significant precedent. If they find a prima facie case, the removal process will proceed; if not, the petitions will be dismissed.
Historical Context: Have Chief Justices Been Removed Before?
Ghana has seen judicial controversies in the past, but the removal of a Chief Justice is rare. Previous cases of judicial dismissals have often been accompanied by political and public outcry.
Understanding past instances of judicial challenges can offer insights into the possible outcomes of this situation.
Expert Opinions and Legal Analysis
Legal Scholars’ Views
Legal experts have weighed in on the matter, emphasizing the need for transparency. Some argue that while the Constitution allows for removal, it must not be used as a political tool.
Bar Associations and Civil Society Reactions
The Ghana Bar Association and human rights groups are expected to issue statements either supporting or opposing the move.
Public Reaction and Civil Society Response
Ghanaians, particularly legal practitioners and civil society groups, will closely monitor this situation. Possible reactions include:
-
Protests or demonstrations against perceived executive interference.
-
Legal challenges to the petitions.
-
Public debates on media platforms regarding judicial independence.
The Future of Ghana’s Judiciary
If the Chief Justice is removed, Ghana will face several challenges:
-
The process of appointing a new Chief Justice will be scrutinized.
-
The judiciary’s credibility may be at stake.
-
Future legal disputes may be overshadowed by concerns of executive influence.
To uphold democracy, Ghana must ensure that the removal process follows legal due process and is free from political manipulation.
Conclusion
The petitions for the removal of the Chief Justice mark a critical moment in Ghana’s legal and political landscape. While the Constitution provides mechanisms for judicial accountability, these must be exercised with caution to maintain public trust in the judiciary.
As the process unfolds, all stakeholders—government officials, legal practitioners, civil society, and the public—must prioritize the principles of fairness, transparency, and judicial independence. The outcome of this case will shape Ghana’s democratic trajectory for years to come.