On the front burner are matters on the removal of Her Ladyship Chief Justice Araba Torkornoo as the Chief Justice of Ghana. It must be stated unambiguously that the process for the removal of a Chief Justice is duly and religiously followed as per Constitutional injunctions. So, the members of the political divide should stop the ugly noises on one hand and on the other hand the useless or the unintelligent and wrongful equating the removal of Lady Mrs Charlotte Osei as Chairperson of the EC.
Concerned Staff of the EC, were the petitioners for the removal of Mrs Charlotte Osei, as the Chairperson of the EC. So, we need to encourage the staff of organizations to be bold through the policy of ‘if you, see or hear or smell something, say something’ to help uproot suspected wrong acts are in every organization or the Nation.
So, per page 54 of the CJ’S Report on the removal of Lady Charlotte at the EC, her removal was done for a just cause. So, in the case for the removal of the CJ, we should hope and pray that the President’s Committee will do a very good job. Hence, let us allow the process for the removal of the CJ, if it is for suspected just cause as found by the Council of State which is not final since it may either be discarded if not for a just cause or confirmed as such by a duly appointed Committee as decreed by the Constitution.. So, let us stop confusing the situation or muddy the waters with the ugly noises from both sides of the political divide.
It is very disturbing when you hear of the unintelligent and unpatriotic equalizations or the references with the very just and constitutional or lawful removal of Mrs Charlotte Osei, as the Chairperson of the EC, on the existence of stated misbehavior and incompetence. These are stated in page 54 of the then Chief Justice’s committee Report.
It is also very disturbing when you hear from very highly educated people that the Mrs Araba Torkornoo must be removed as the Chief Justice because her appointment was not based on seniority. Our respected Leaders especially from the intelligentsia community should stop insulting the wisdom and intelligence of the framers of the Constitution.
We expect our respected members of the Academia to conduct wide research and be informed why the appointment of a Justice to the Supreme Court and the CJ should not necessary be based on seniority at the Judicial bench. They must note that the appointment of Justices to Ghana’s Supreme Court, which is basically a Constitutional Court, which operates in both the legal and political landscapes is not academic decision.
The Supreme Court globally is basically or virtually a Political Institution as well, since it has the power to cancel or confirm the will of the electorate in a Presidential Election and power to nullify Public policy by the Executive Arm of Government or declare a law enacted by Parliament as null and void. So, virtually some of the rulings of the Supreme Court and the power to direct the Executive, including the Independent Executive Constitutional Bodies to act in a way as directed by the Court, speaks volumes that some of the decisions of the Supreme Court have political undertones.
So, the process of nominating a Justices to the Supreme Court, is not and should not be an academic decision or exercise. Consequently she or he must not always come from the judicial bench or outfit but should also be based on various considerations. According to retired Justice Atuguba, need for professional diversity to establish a well-balanced judiciary should be a consideration. So persons from varied legal experiences should be a consideration. So according to Justice Atuguba, a distinguished lawyer from the bar and academia should be a consideration for the Court to benefit from a wider array of backgrounds. Google and Read ‘Retired Justice Atuguba Calls for greater diversity in Supreme Court appointments’. This is somehow part of the doctrine of USA, where the persons Judicial Philosophy and most often his or her Political belief either as a conservative or liberal minded as expected of every human being play part in the selection.
Hmm, one may be right to say that the person must be one with ability to make sound judgments on important public issues, hence a Statesman (not same as a politician) . So, Ideology should also count, since Justices’ ideological leanings can influence how they interpret the law and make decisions in cases that have significant policy implication. This is reflected in a study published in the Drake Law Review and Research Article by Research Gate.
Ghanaian would not be happy to have a Justice or Chief Justice who is known as a same sex promoter. So, it is a fact that no appointing authority would nominate a person who has a vast difference in ideological bearing from the appointing authority. Example, however, qualified a Justice or a person maybe, President Trump of USA would not nominate as a Justice of the Supreme Court of USA, hence a CJ, a person who has ever demo support for same sex etc
The Supreme Court especially when as a the Constitutional Court as well as in Ghana as part of the political architecture or Arms of Government of a nation, hence a political institution makes the appointment of the Justices and the Chief Justice to be a debatable/contentious political decision because of the implications, and not an academic decision.
This is so, since Sovereign Power reside with the people or Sovereignty of the People, hence, emanates from the people as stated in Clause 1 of Article 1 of the 1992 Constitution. So the President and members of Parliament as voted for by the Voters (to act on their behalf) must have a say on who should be the CJ. So, the occupant of the Seat or the Office of Chief Justice, should not necessary be based on seniority as perceived by some people.
So, the Seat of the CJ requires that the occupant must able to perform various roles including, presiding of the Supreme Court, hence a consensus builder, not divisive, hence skill in causing effective easiness or comradeship with colleagues. So, a potential good judicial leader from the judicial bench or seasoned lawyer with high integrity of repute, hence general reputation in the legal community, consideration of his or her diligence or industry.
Furthermore, Judicial temperament which involves the nominee’s compassion, decisiveness, open mildness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under the law. So he or she should either be a Justice or a judge or a constitutional scholar, judicial advocator and good administrator/statesman. Earlier experience in the Court may be an advantage consideration.
To drive my point home, that Seniority per se is not a requirement for appointment of a CJ, let me say that in 1969, the then President of USA, President Nixon, had to select Judge Warren Burger, who was neither a Justice of the Supreme Court nor from the Court of Appeal Court or a High Court Judge but was a Circuit Court as the Chief Justice of the Federal Supreme Court of USA.
President Nixon, indicated that one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of USA, told him that it would not be in the best interest of the Supreme Court to appoint a sitting Justice on the court to occupant the seat of the CJ, because of lack of comradeship with colleagues on the bench. That due to the special role of the CJ has to play as a leader of the Court, it will be difficult to take a man from the same Court and put him above others, this is debatable. So the affected Justice of the Supreme Court recommended to President Nixon to select someone outside the Supreme Court.
So, one may say that the appointment of justice Mrs Araba Torkornoo as CJ, beside the need for gender balance in national appointments and the Constitutional requirements for the Office of the Chief Justice, was based on the open considerations permissible by the Constitution to the President to act appropriately.
Lady Araba, appointment as CJ and her judicial decisions should not be challenged. So the allegation that Presidential Candidate JD Mahama, in 2024, promised that if elected as President of Ghana and when the opportunity grants him to appoint, he would ensure a well-balanced in the Judiciary System, should not be challenged or raise our high blood pressure or anxiety. Since, he is expected as the National Risk Owner, to study the terrain and act accordingly.
So it the case of removal of the Justice of a Superior Court etc, It should be clear with a critical thinking mindset that the need for impartiality (no consideration of undertones of partisan politics but the likelihood of Political beliefs as a human being ) and ensure the implementation of the recommendations by the President made the framers of the 1992 Constitution, to decree that a petition for a removal of a Justice of a Superior Court etc, must be sent to the President and the President shall refer the petition to the Chief Justice to investigate. Shall means that the President has no say but to hand it over to the CJ.
The CJ is then required to conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether the petitions merited detailed investigation or not. If yes, then the CJ constitutes a duly Committee as stated in the Constitution to investigate and give the results to be submitted to the President, who is the appointing authority and also as the removal authority, but the removal must be based on just cause, to act accordingly as recommended.
This was the situation that saw the duly removal of Mrs Loretta Lamptey, as the Chairperson of CHRAJ by President Mahama in November 2015 for stated misbehavior (misappropriating of State Funds on her rent etc). Mrs Charlotte Osei was removed on the grounds of existence of both incompetence and stated misbehavior. Her two Deputies namely Mr Amadu Sulley and Mrs Georgina Amankwa were duly removed for Stated Misbehavior.
Google and read ‘EC Commissioner Sheds office secret in leaked audio’ as reported on Graphic Online. This article is very revealing including alleged gross misbehavior by members of the EC, especially the allegation of an attempt to change the results of the 2016 Presidential Election to motivate for a bye election as in the quoted article or audio. Hence, it suggested that the delay in the releasing of results of the 2016 Presidential Election was likely to exploit a lucrative window possibly for a wrongful or unprofessional act to be conducted by the key members of the EC.
Thus a strong confirmation of the assertion by His Royal Highness, the Ashantehene at the UNHQ, New York, that he has to convince the then Presidential Candidate Mr JD Mahama to accept defeat. This is hinted in Manasseh book, Google and read ‘’Mrs Charlotte Osei asked President Mahama to seek permission from the Military Command before declaring the results’. The alleged story that the then President of Ghana held a meeting with the then CDS, the then Service Commanders with the then Chief of Staff in attendance speaks volume.
The alleged unacceptable comment of the then Chief of Staff against the then CDS and others, which made the then CDS to tell the then President his Commander- in- Chief or Supreme Commander to get the results of the 2016 Presidential election declared with minimum delay, since the barracks were agog with the President election result speaks volumes of among others, an act which is totally an aberration from Constitutional provision. This a case study.
So, the petitions by patriotic concerned staff of the EC for the removal of Mrs Charlotte Osei as the then Chairperson of the EC was appropriate and must be applauded by patriotic new citizens of Ghana who prioritize the interest of the Country first. Since it was the members of the EC who marketed for their removal, due to several allegations of misconducts at the EC. These culminated in the disturbing news in the public domain about infighting between members of the EC. The wrangling resulted in a division within the EC, with the Chairperson and two members at her side and her two Deputies with two other members on one side, due to lack of trust or bad blood. Thus exemplified poor leadership which somehow hints incompetency, which is a Constitutional removal charge.
So the affected staff did a very good job for Ghana, when they sent the Petitions for the removal of Mrs Charlotte Osei to the then President of Ghana in July 2017. Some may say it should only be cited when we want workers of State Organization not to be spectators but ears, eyes and nose of National Security and say something about their suspicions.
The allegations, include unilateral cancellation of contract with STL to supply and manage Biometric Voter Registration and payment of 76,000.00 US Dollars to the IT Firm by name Dream Oval. The allegations indicated that decisions were done unilateral without recourse to the appropriate department and even her two deputies were sidelined, she was also accused of involvement in fraudulent activities.
As required by the Constitution, the then President of Ghana in 2017 forwarded the petitions to the then Chief Justice, who is to check for the existence of a Constitutional threshold for removal by a prima facie case of a misbehavior against Mrs Charlotte Osei. Hence, that motivated an investigation by a constitutionally constituted Committee.
So, the then Chief Justice’s Committee investigated six cases as in the petitions for the removal of Mrs Charlotte Osei as Chairperson of EC. These include breaches of Public Procurement laws in the award of several contracts prior to the 2016.
The CJ’s Committee found that though the EC had a Procurement Unit with a Head of Department, the then Chairwoman took over the role of procurement of stores and award of contracts without following due process of procurement procedures as in the Public Procurement Act (PPA).
She was found guilty when she explained that she did know that She was required to abide by the procurement laws of Ghana, especially PPA and Internal Procurement Regulation of the EC. Her excuse of ignorance of the law was not tenable, especially as a seasoned Lawyer and then as a Public Officer who occupied the highest Office of a Chairperson of the EC. Hence she rendered herself as incompetent and guilty of stated misbehavior. So her removal was based on existence of two counts of stated misbehavior and incompetency, hence for just causes as stipulated by the 1992 Constitution. For confirmation Google and read ‘Why Charlotte Osei and her two Deputies were sacked as in CJ’s report Page 54 as reported by Graphic Online.
For public interest let me add that during the tenure of Office of the then Chairperson of the EC and her two Deputies, there were several stories of wrangling or infighting between members of the EC with Mrs Charlotte Osei with two members on one hand and Mrs Georgina Amankwa and Mr Sulley Amadu, her two deputies with two other members on the other hand. This was so due to Mrs Charlotte Osei leadership style of ‘We Came, We saw it and we done it’ mantra. Thus at that time, she likely demo incompetent leadership style, since she could not use her authority to control disorder in the EC.
So, persons who cite the very sad or rather the very disgraceful situation at the EC under the Chairperson of Mrs Charlotte Osei may be unintelligent and unpatriotic or lacked critical thinking mindset to appreciate what happened by members of the EC, under the Chairperson Lady Lawyer Mrs Charlotte Osei Esq was against the interest of Ghana. This was so due to beside the procurement breaches which occasioned the infighting and the most serious one was the then members of the EC putting this great Country on time bomb during the 2016 Presidential Election.
All patriotic Ghanaians must continue to be thanking the Almighty God for giving us a great King in the person of the Ashantehene who with great wisdom, timeously disarmed the time bomb. We need to be praying for the King of the Ashanti Kingdom to live longer, say for the next 70 years.
Based on what happened as narrated in the alleged leak audio as published on Graphic online. Google and read ‘EC Commissioner Sheds office secret in leaked audio’ and the accounts by Mr Manasseh Awuni in one of his books with part of the story which you should Google and read ‘EC Chair Sought permission from Military before declaring Akuffo Addo as President’ as stated in Manasseh’s Book ‘The Fourth John Reign, Rejection and Rebound’ So, ‘Ghanafou’ let say Never again should we have another ‘Mrs Charlotte Osei’ as the Chairperson of EC. So stop exalting her with her role at the EC and rather praise and thank the concerned staff of the EC for a very good job. Otherwise, we are promoting bad governance and or wrong doings in Ghana.
Note Ghana will not have HIS Royal Highness, the Ashantehene forever. So stop citing the removal of Mrs Charlotte Osei for just cause done as per the Constitutional injunction. So, the equating the removal of Mrs Charlotte Osei as the EC Chairperson to the attempt to remove or uproot Mrs Araba Torkornoo from the seat of the substantive CJ , demo acts by unintelligent and unpatriotic persons, or persons imbued with dishonesty DNA, so, these ungodly acts, are unacceptable .
The removal of Her Ladyship Araba, the suspended CJ should be supported by all Ghanaians including her family if and only if the Committee found her guilty for the just cause of incompetency, or stated misbehavior or not capable to perform her functions as CJ.
It must be noted that, in every Democratic Country, there exist a Political Architecture made of three Arms of Government. These are the Executive with the President as the Head, the Legislature with the Speaker of Parliament as the Head and the Judiciary with the Chief Justice as the Head. The three Arms of Government are coequal and Independent Political Institutions, hence sharing sovereign power. This power is either Executive or Legislative or judicial respectively The Political architecture, allows each of the three Arms of Government to act as a check to the others to ensure balance of powers in the control of the machinery of the Country.
The Supreme Court of Ghana with the additional role as a Constitutional Court, hence as a custodian of the Constitution and thus mandated to decide on all legal and Constitutional or political matters cannot be ousted or excluded from the Political Architecture of Ghana within the Political Map of Ghana. So, although the CJ and the Justices of the Supreme Court are not to be politicians but they should be Statesmen. That is persons who should be able to give sound judgment on important public issues, so as human beings they would surely have an ideology, hence they also vote to see to a better and Stable Ghana, hence ideological adjudication based on judicial philosophy and not on partisan manner is expected of the members of the Constitutional Court. Hence commonsense will tell that the Supreme Court of Ghana when acting as a Constitutional Court is basically a Political Institution with exclusive judiciary powers. Period. Hence, the actions of the CJ, hence her Ladyship Araba, as the Chief Judicial Administrator and a ‘Statesman’ at the bench is not an easy one, it has serious national Security implication, so the trial of a Justice or the CJ must be held in camera.
Further study or probe would reveal that the Chief Justice and members of the Supreme Court in addition to judicial powers, the Court wields pseudo executive or political powers to deal with Public Policy and Pseudo legislative powers to declare an Act by the Speaker and Members of Parliament unconstitutional or illegal to ensure the stability of the nation, since the preservation and upholding of the Constitution is linked with the Stability of the Nation hence the Fourth Republic.
So, the responsibility of the CJ, especially as the Chief Judicial Administrator should include the empanelling of the bench and chairing a case of national or public interest. So, the President must have a say on who should be the CJ and once he or she is appointed as the CJ, the removal of he or she as the CJ is as stated in the Constitution and nothing more. This ‘O’ and ‘A’ level Government lessons. Hence, some Scholars may say that the Supreme Court has ‘encroaching’ sovereign powers and may act like an octopus spreading its tentacles when acting as a Constitutional Court, since it can look into legal, political social (especially Chieftaincy, Religious etc) and economic questions that is be it a Judicial or the Executive (Policy) or Act by the Legislature.
Regardless of the fact that Political doctrine Question comes to play in the Work of the Supreme Court, the fact that the Rulings of the Supreme becomes a law or Constitutional interpretation of the Constitution becomes an order to the Executive or Legislature , otherwise the violation of the order is a treasonable offence, one may not be wrong to say that, the Supreme Court as a Constitutional Court, may sometimes act like an octopus and thus enjoys a perceived both pseudo Executive and pseudo Legislative powers in addition to the exclusive judicial powers. So 100 percent Separation of Powers is just utopia concept. The theory of Separation of powers is very necessary to prevent despotism and attainment of public liberty but not to prune the tentacles of the Supreme Court as a Constitutional Court.
So, for the removal of the Justices of Superior Court and Chief Justice of Ghana etc, the framers of the Constitution prevented or ousted the Executive and the Legislature to have a say on their removal. Hence, the respected framers of the Constitution made the Chief Justice as the competent authority to determine a case of prima facie for the removal of the Justices of the Superior Court. If in the opinion of the CJ, there is a suspicion of prime facie then the CJ must confirm this by investigation the matter through an Investigative Committee duly constituted as per the requirement of the Constitution. The recommendations of the CJ’s Committee or Report must be sent to the President for appropriate action.
For petition for the removal of the Chief Justice, strangely the Constitution is very silenced on determination of the existence of prima case, it direct that petition shall be received by the President and the President shall acting in consultation with the Council of State appoint a Committee to deal with it. Thus neither the Executive nor legislature or the Council of State have the power to determine whether a petition in the face of it (prime facie) merited to be investigated. This is very serious since the responsibility to do so per the Constitution is by a Committee as stated in the Constitution.
A school of thought may say that the President and the Council of State like the Post Master should apply their wisdom like a Post master that a posted mail does not have adequate postage stamps or a posted letter or parcel is suspected to contain a bomb that may destroy national stability and discard it or return it to sender. So Ghana needs to use a subtle way to deal with it, otherwise the President will receive avalanche of petitions and I am afraid if Ghanaians do not use their heads very well, we may germinate or nurse a bad conduct in Ghana. So, the Supreme Court of Ghana as a Constitutional Court, when called upon, should to rise to the occasion to nib this potential risk or canker in the bud.
This is necessary, since, the 1992 Constitution made it mandatory for the President to act on petitions received for the removal of the CJ, with the use of the word shall and not may. The word May is only used for the suspension of the CJ. So, the President may revoke the suspension as in Clause 11 of Article 146. One may suggest since the Constitutional Court should be able to deal with all matters of the Constitution, the Powers of the Supreme Court should be invoked to cure a constitutional problem.
Otherwise, if the process is allowed to go through, without deeper and sober thinking of the seed we are germinating or planting, Ghana will never have a CJ because numerous and frivolous petitions will be sent daily to the President for the removal of CJ. So let us not fail to close this dangerous gate. Otherwise, it will become like kokofo football match either on tribal or political or religious line battle. The signs are written on the walls for those who can see to rise up and kill this from being Part of our DNA of PHD (Pull Him Down) syndrome.
Hence, the Supreme Court of Ghana, the only alternative available, when called upon, so consider to cure this looming disaster that is a potential national security risk. This is based on the security assessment of a student of risk management, the author’s security contribution to ensure social and national cohesion and stability.
So, Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution provides the grounds for the removal of a Justice of a Superior Court including the Chief Justice and Chairmen of Regional Tribunal must be based on three ingredients as follows Stated Misbehavior, Incompetence, or ground of inability to perform the functions of his or her Office arising from infirmity of body or mind.
All these elements need to be investigated by an authority, who is to refer a petition to a duly Committee. Hence the need for an investigative committee who is required to use specialists when the petition is about inability to perform a duty, for the affected person to be declare us medically fit or unfit. Thank God Her Ladyship Araba is very sound in health, so no issue of this kind.
Clause 6 of Article 146 of the Constitution in a very clear English gives the procedure for the removal of the Chief Justice must be contingent on submission of a petition to the President and the President Shall, in Consultation with the Council of State, appoint a committee to investigate the petition, so presented to the President.
Clause 10 of Article 146 of the Constitution states the President acting in accordance with the advice of the Council of State may suspend the CJ. Clause 11 of Article 146, allows the President to revoke the suspension at any time. So the President can revoke the suspension. Clause 9 of Article 146 directs that the President shall act in accordance to the recommendation of the Committee.
So, for the process for the removal of the current CJ, neither President Mahama nor the Council of State is the competent authority to determine whether in the face value of a petition, it merited an investigation that is the CJ has a constitutional or legal question to answer. This is a function of an Investigative Committee to be constituted as directed by the Constitution. So President Mahama and the Council of State have both acted accordingly to the Process as spelt out by the 1992 Constitution at Article 146. So they must be applauded.
Consequently, the respected members of the Constitutional Committee, including a very seasoned respected, very honest and very informed Military Officer who together with the two Justices of the Superior Court are required to investigate the petition and find out whether there exist grounds of stated misbehavior or incompetence in the functions of the CJ. I am very sure that the Committee is going to do a fair and honest job.
On the front burner is an issue of misapplication of funds for trips outside Ghana. So, one of the Constitutional and legal question to be answered by her Ladyship, Chief Justice Araba Torkornoo, the Suspended Chief Justice is whether there exist a matter of stated misbehavior in the petition by the petitioner.
The framers of the Constitution made it very clear at Clause 1 of Article 127 of the 1992 Constitution that in the exercising of judicial powers, the Judiciary both in its Judicial and Administrative functions including financial administrations, is subject only to this Constitution and must not be subject to the control of or direction of any authority.
The salary and allowances of a Chief Justice and Justices of Superiors Court are to be determined as provided in Clause (1) (b) of Article 71 of the 1992 Constitution. Thus by the provisions of Clause 1 of the Article 127 of the 1992 Constitution, the Judiciary must exercise its Independence by spelling out the terms and conditions of the Staff EXCLUDING the salary and allowances of the Chief Justice and Justices of Superior Courts which will be determined as stated under Article 71 of the Constitution.
Clause 5 of Article 127 of the 1992 Constitution states that The Terms and Conditions including salaries, allowance, privileges, and rights of the Justice of the Superior Court etc shall not be varied to his or her disadvantaged. So the terms and the Conditions of the Chief Justice are granted by (a) the salaries and allowances as determined by the President of Ghana based on the recommendation of an Emolument Committee set up by the President as stated in Article 71 and (b) as stated by the Judicial Council. So these must be in an appointment letter issued to the CJ.
One of the Petition is on illegal purchase of travel ticket for her relatives and illegal payment of per deim. Chief Justice Araba Torkornoo denied misappropriation of HC261,890.00 of public fund on private foreign trips with husband and daughter.
She admitted that she travelled abroad on different occasions either with the husband or her daughter and not both at the expense of the State. This was/is permissible in her appointment letter or it was in accordance with the Judiciary Services Foreign Travel Policy as introduced in 2010 and updated in 2019, part are as spelt in her appointment letter as CJ. The Policy or letter, details the terms of appointment including two round-trips in a year with air tickets for official vacations, at a maximum of 14 days.
That paragraph B1 indicates the travel expenses, hotel accommodation, and per diem for these holidays at the expense of the Judiciary Services. That the Judiciary Service Policy on Foreign Travel among others, allow a CJ to undertake unlimited official travels with either his/her spouse or other person of his her choice in a year to be fully paid by the Judiciary Service. The accompanied person must travel on the same class of air ticket as the CJ and shall be paid half of the per diem payable to the CJ, Thee Policy has been in place since 2010 for the CJ and Justices of the Superior Court which was amended in 2019.
The suspended CJ made it very clear that matters of this kind are handled by the Judiciary Secretary and the Director of Finance of the Judicial Service in accordance to rates set up by the Committee on Emoluments as stated in Article 71. According to her, out of an imprest of 14,000.00 US Dollars, she spent 4,411.00 US Dollars and returned the balance, two days after returning from her trip.
This matter has brought an interesting sorry. Since the three Arms of Government are coequal, let us find out since 1993 the state of the imprest of the Speaker of Parliament and the President of Ghana, during external trips, and whether they ever returned part of their imprest or rather over spent if so by what amount. We also need to find out whether any of the President of Ghana or Speaker of Parliament since 1993 has ever travelled with his family members, side chicks, party members and others before throwing the stone at the Suspended CJ on her trips Let us kill the ugly noises by acting fairly . The situation should rather help us to fine tune the Constitution by appropriate amendments and not to sack her for alleged misappropriation of dully approved funds.
