The ongoing discourse surrounding the petitions for the removal of Ghana’s Chief Justice has brought to the forefront critical questions about the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such matters. Legal scholar Kwaku Azar, also known as Kwaku Azar, has weighed in on the debate, emphasizing the Supreme Court’s lack of jurisdiction in removal processes governed by Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution. He bases his argument on a precedent-setting Supreme Court ruling in the case of Ghana Bar Association v. Attorney-General & Anor [1995–96] 1 GLR 598, which explicitly denies the Court original concurrent jurisdiction in matters falling under Article 146. This article delineates the procedures for removing specified public officers, including the Chief Justice, and vests the initial power to initiate such proceedings with the President.
The petitions, spearheaded by Member of Parliament Vincent Assafuah and presented by former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame, prompted the President to consult the Council of State, as mandated by the Constitution. Azar contends that the Ghana Bar Association case firmly establishes the principle of exclusive jurisdiction. When the Constitution assigns specific adjudicatory powers to a designated body, as it does in Article 146, the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is effectively circumscribed. This interpretation reinforces the constitutional framework of checks and balances and prevents the Supreme Court from usurping the powers explicitly granted to other institutions.
Article 146 outlines a structured process for the removal of certain public officers, including the Chief Justice, for stated misbehavior or inability to perform the functions of their office arising from infirmity of body or mind. This process involves a presidential investigation, consultation with the Council of State, and, if the President determines sufficient grounds exist, the establishment of a committee to investigate the allegations. The committee presents its report to the President, who then acts upon the findings. The Chief Justice can only be removed from office if the committee’s recommendations are supported by two-thirds of Parliament. This meticulously defined procedure emphasizes the gravity of removing a high-ranking public official and ensures a thorough and balanced examination of the charges.
Azar’s argument hinges on the concept of parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers. Parliament, as the legislative body, is tasked with the ultimate decision on removal, guided by the committee’s findings. The Supreme Court, as the judicial arm of government, is prevented from intervening in this process, respecting the delineated powers of the legislature and executive branches. This separation of powers is crucial to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful, ensuring the stability and integrity of the constitutional framework. Azar emphasizes that attempts by the Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction in Article 146 proceedings would constitute an overreach, undermining the constitutional balance of power.
The Ghana Bar Association case serves as a cornerstone for Azar’s position. The Supreme Court’s explicit disavowal of original concurrent jurisdiction in matters related to Article 146 reinforces the exclusive mandate conferred upon the designated bodies within that article. This precedent, according to Azar, serves as a definitive guide in interpreting the Constitution’s intent regarding the removal of specified public officers. He argues that the Court’s prior decision offers a compelling basis for dismissing any potential attempts to involve the judiciary in the ongoing removal process against the Chief Justice.
While Azar’s intervention has sparked Renewed debate concerning the judiciary’s role in high-profile removal petitions, he has explicitly stated that his comments are not legal advice and should not be construed as an attempt to influence any ongoing or future legal proceedings. His contribution to the discussion provides a valuable legal perspective on the delicate balance of power within Ghana’s constitutional framework, highlighting the importance of respecting the designated roles of each branch of government in maintaining the integrity of the removal process outlined in Article 146. The ongoing situation involving the Chief Justice underscores the continued relevance of these constitutional principles and the importance of robust debate and consistent legal interpretation in upholding the rule of law.
