The Office of the Attorney General (AG) has described the content of interlocutory injunction against the processes activated by the President to suspend the Justice Gertrude Torkornoo as the Chief Justice as “speculative, exceptionally frivolous, and an abuse of the court’s processes.”
According to the AG, The Centre for Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems LBG, the (applicant’s) affidavit contains materials that violate constitutional provisions.
The Centre for Citizenship, sued the Attorney General, Justice Gertrude Araba Asaaba Sackey Torkornoo and Justice Gabriel Pwamang as first, second and third defendants respectively.
The civil society group is challenging the processes leading to the suspension of Justice Gertrude Torkornoo as the Chief Justice.
The group said, the process lacked due process and violated the standards of fairness, non-discrimination and lawful administrative actions required by the 1992 Constitution.
The Center for Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems per the suit is asking the Supreme Court to declare that the President’s response or action in respect of the three petitions to remove the Chief Justice was not done in accordance with the 1992 Constitution.
The writ avers that the President’s action violates Articles 17(1), (2), (3), 23, 296, and 146(1), (2), (3), (4), and (6) of the Constitution.
The group is therefore, asking the Supreme Court to declare President Mahama’s response to the petition as unconstitutional.
But, in its affidavit opposing the motion, the AG argued that the court should exercise its jurisdiction to dismiss the injunction motion pending the determination of the substantive suit.
Specifically, the AG requests that paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, and 26 of the applicant’s affidavit in support be struck on the following grounds:
a) That the materials which are exhibited to or stated in the named Paragraphs, being matters relating to the in camera proceedings of the removal of a person from the office of the Chief Justice, are exhibited or stated in violation of the Constitution.
b. That the materials which are exhibited to or stated in the named Paragraphs are inadmissible on grounds of authenticity.
c. That the probative value (if any) of the materials which are exhibited to or matters which are stated in the named Paragraphs, being unauthentic and having been exhibited or stated in violation of the Constitution, is far outweighed by their prejudicial effect on ongoing proceedings of theremoval of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent from the office of the Chief justice.
d. That the matters contained in the named Paragraphs are exceedingly speculative, exceptionally frivolous and, thereby, constitute an abuse of the processes oft h e Court.
