By: Barbara Kumah
Significantly, the Supreme Court (SC) in a prior ruling, dismissed an objection by Deputy Attorney-General, to have the 2nd to 6th defendants named in the Chief Justice’s injunction application. Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, prior to hearing of the application, drew the attention of the court to the fact that the writ by the Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, only mentioned the Attorney-General as the party affected by the suit and not the two justices and the other three members of the Committee.
The deputy A-G, said by the CJ’s admission, the 2nd to 6th defendants, were not interested parties to the case. The court however upheld the Attorney General’s objection to the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the suspended Chief Justice on May 26.
The court was of the opinion that the issues in the supplementary affidavit are a discourse of events happening at the Committee probing.
The 2nd to 6th defendants in the application, were Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, Daniel Yao Domelovo and other members of the Committee as defendants in the case. The deputy Attorney-General, raised the objection that, they were not cited in the Chief Justice injunction as, affected persons and for that reason, requested the court not to include them in the matter.
Lawyer for the Chief Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, however disagreed.
He submitted that the objection was totally unmeritorious and legally unfair. He contended that claims have been made and reliefs sought against members of the Committee in the Chief Justice’s affidavit in support of her motion. The court, upheld the argument of Mr. Dame and dismissed the objection.
Dr Srem Sai, raising a second objection, prayed the Court to struck out the supplementary affidavit on grounds that the depositions in the said document violate Article 146(8) of the Constitution. He submitted that the proceedings of a Committee under article 146 should be heard in camera, therefore if the affidavit is allowed to stand it will be in violation of the principles.
In the said supplementary affidavit which has since been struck out, the Chief Justice alleged that she has not been informed of the basis for the prima facie case established against her or the specific allegations made against her to enable her prepare a defence.
Related
She also claims that the Committee has breached rules regulating Commissions of Inquiry by indicating that the petitioners shall not give evidence themselves but call other witnesses to do so to support their petition. She described this as completely offensive. She further raised concerns of fairness in the proceedings as she and her lawyers are denied access to their phones and laptops while lawyers for the petitioners are allowed access.
The suspended Chief Justice said her husband and children are denied access to the hearing room, she undergoing body searches coupled with the proceedings being held in a high security zone, was a deliberate effort to subject her to mental torture and degrading treatment in violation of her fundamental rights.
Chief Justice Torkornoo, claimed all Article 146 proceedings were held in a judicial facility, specifically, the Courts Complex in Accra, therefore the current situation of conducting the proceedings cordoned in a high security facility boggles her mind.
She further alleged that the persistent violations of her constitutional rights is an indication that the entire process initiated against her is a mockery of justice and a ploy to unjustifiably remove her as Chief Justice.
