By: Franklin ASARE-DONKOH
The Executive Director of the Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), and the Chairman of the Constitutional Review Committee, Professor Henry Kwasi Prempeh has called for major reforms to Ghana’s judicial removal process.
According to him, there is too much secrecy and conflicts of interest surrounding the judicial removal process under Article 146 of the 1992 Republican Constitution.
Reacting to the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, on his Facebook page, the Executive Director of CDD-Ghana and Chairman of the Constitutional Review Committee set up by President Mahama, again raised serious concerns about the constitutional framework governing the removal of superior court justices.
In a pointed critique, Prof. Prempeh took issue with Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, which sets out the procedure for the removal of justices, including the Chief Justice.
According to him, the current process lacks transparency and compromises the integrity of judicial independence.
Below is his post on Facebook
“I have at least two problems with Article 146 in its present form. First, is the secrecy or lack of transparency concerning the removal petition? Even if the removal proceedings must be held in camera, I believe that, at the minimum, the findings and outcome of the proceedings, including the grounds and supporting evidence behind the removal petition, must be made public after the fact–that is, whether or not the petition succeeds.
The public must not be kept in the dark as to why a removal petition failed or succeeded. In the interest of justice, I believe the grounds and evidence in support of the committee’s decision, whichever way it goes, must be made public, so that the public, too, can judge for themselves as to whether justice was served in the matter.
Second, I think that, where the removal petition pertains to a Chief Justice, no sitting judge should be included in the five-person removal committee that is constituted to hear the petition.
In other words, none of the CJ’s judicial peers must be made to sit in judgment on a removal petition involving their judicial colleague or “boss”, as they are likely to have an interest in the outcome of the case.
We could use retired jurists or other retired career public servants, preferably appointed by a special committee of the Council of State, in place of sitting judges. The three other nonlawyer members of the removal committee could also be selected through a more politically inclusive, diverse, or neutral process, as opposed to being appointed, as Article 146 currently provides, by the President in consultation with the Council of State.
Better to keep a President out of the removal process, except to implement, after the fact, the final outcome of the process as determined by an independent removal committee. My two cents”
