In recent weeks, public discourse has been sharply divided over the calls for the dismissal of a the Chief Justice of Ghana, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey, JSC.
While various petitions have been filed against her, one must ask: Do the allegations truly amount to misconduct deserving of removal? Or are we, as a society, increasingly allowing political affiliations and personal vendettas to replace due process and legal standards?
In a functioning democracy, the dismissal of a public officer, especially one in a sensitive, constitutionally protected role like a Chief Justice, must be grounded in law. Allegations must be substantiated with evidence, investigated thoroughly, and adjudicated fairly. The mere fact that someone is deemed “evil,” “incompetent,” or “biased” by a group of political actors does not, in itself, constitute legal grounds for dismissal.
From a review of the allegations, it is hard to conclusively determine that any amount to gross misconduct. Many appear to fall within the realm of administrative lapses or interpersonal disagreements, which, while needing attention, are not necessarily grounds for termination. Unless there is proven abuse of power, corruption, or persistent dereliction of duty, dismissal may be excessive and legally unwarranted.
What seems to be at play is a psychological phenomenon deeply rooted in our political culture. Political actors, often driven by past grievances, party loyalty, or groupthink, may subconsciously inflate minor issues into serious allegations. When one is convinced of someone’s unworthiness, every action by that individual becomes suspect, further confirming their belief in a self-reinforcing cycle of condemnation.
This mindset is dangerous. It leads to actions not informed by law but by emotion. It distorts reality and leads to punitive outcomes that are more about retribution than justice.
Unfortunately, we have seen this pattern before. Heads of public institutions, CEOs, directors, and commissioners, are often removed and replaced under new political regimes. The narrative is simple: align with the party’s vision or make way for someone who will.
However, where the office in question is designed to be independent, this practice becomes an abuse of power. It undermines institutional credibility and creates a chilling effect where public officers may feel pressured to serve partisan interests instead of the national good.
In the current case, it appears that some individuals, lacking clear legal grounds, are attempting to use allegations as a tool to justify a politically-motivated removal. This strategy, while seemingly effective in the short term, corrodes the foundation of democratic governance.
Political power is not private property. It should not be exercised as one pleases, nor used to settle personal or political scores. We must remember that what is done today under the guise of political convenience may come back to haunt us when the tables turn.
Removing an official should not be about who is in power, who feels hurt, or who believes they’ve been treated unfairly in the past. It must be about the law, the evidence, and the public interest. Anything less opens the door to institutional collapse.
If we do not uphold integrity and fairness now, we may soon find ourselves in a society where no one is protected, no office is respected, and no truth is upheld.
Isaac Bawuah
[email protected]
