A constitutional lawyer, Raymond Bidema, has suggested that the lawsuit filed by the Member of Parliament for the Old Tafo constituency, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, challenging the suspension of the Chief Justice, may be moot if its primary aim was to ensure the Chief Justice was given an audience.
Speaking to Tutuwaa Danso on Starr Today on April 24, Mr. Bidema explained that if the petitioner’s intention was simply to compel the President to allow Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo to respond to the allegations leveled against her, then the case may not go far, as the President had already done so before activating Article 146(6).
He pointed out that after the petitions calling for the removal of the Chief Justice were received and referred to the Council of State, the President gave the Chief Justice a ten-day window to respond. In his view, this action satisfied the constitutional requirement of giving the affected party an opportunity to be heard.
“If you look at the events that prompted the petitioner to go to court, it was actually the fact that the President had not given a hearing to the embattled Chief Justice at the time. That was the main reason the petitioner went to court. While that was still pending, the President went ahead to give the Chief Justice the opportunity to be heard.
“You’ll recall the President gave the Chief Justice 10 days to respond to the petitions that were presented to him. If that is the only reason for which the petitioner went to court, then it means the matter will become moot,” Bidema noted.
His remarks come in the wake of a fresh suit filed by the Old Tafo lawmaker at the Supreme Court, in which Assafuah contends that President Mahama breached several constitutional provisions by suspending the Chief Justice without first ensuring that she was heard.
Assafuah is seeking three reliefs from the apex court:
- An order restraining any step or action from being taken as part of the processes for the removal of the Chief Justice under Article 146, or in any manner, until the hearing and final determination of the instant action.
- An order suspending the operation of the warrant for the suspension of the Chief Justice, purportedly issued by the President under Article 146(10) of the 1992 Constitution, until the hearing and final determination of the instant action.
- A declaration that the President’s suspension of the Chief Justice without giving her a hearing violates the Constitution.
This marks the second such application filed by the MP, represented by former Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame, since the petition against the Chief Justice became public in late March. A previous application for an interlocutory injunction is scheduled to be heard on May 6, 2025.
Source: Ghana/StarrFM 103.5FM/Tutuwaa Danso
