CJ Removal Petition Proceeds as Supreme Court Dismisses Injunction

The Supreme Court has officially struck out the injunction application filed by Old Tafo Member of Parliament Vincent Ekow Assafuah against the petition seeking the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo.

This development came after Godfred Dame, counsel for the MP, withdrew the suit, which aimed to restrain the President from forwarding the petition to the Council of State.

Prior to the dismissal, the Supreme Court had unanimously rejected an objection raised by Godfred Dame against Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie’s involvement in the case.

The court maintained that the issue raised by Dame did not disqualify Justice Baffoe-Bonnie from presiding over the proceedings, emphasizing its commitment to upholding due judicial process throughout the case.

During the court proceedings on Tuesday, May 6, Godfred Dame argued that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie should recuse himself from the panel because he stood to be directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings. However, Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem Sai countered this argument, and the court ultimately ruled in favor of proceeding with the current panel.

The case has garnered significant attention, particularly given the constitutional implications of the petition seeking the removal of the Chief Justice. President John Dramani Mahama had forwarded three petitions calling for her removal to the Council of State for advice, in accordance with Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.

In response to the petition, the Chief Justice provided a detailed rebuttal, and the Attorney General, Dr. Dominic Ayine, noted that the President’s actions were in line with constitutional procedures.

“He needs to understand that this is the performance of a constitutional duty and the law is very clear that you cannot enjoin the performance of a constitutional or public obligation,” Dr. Ayine emphasized.

The Supreme Court’s decision to strike out the injunction application marks a significant development in the ongoing proceedings, and the case continues to unfold with implications for the judiciary and the country’s governance framework.