NPP MP files suit against Attorney-General over Chief Justice removal process

The immediate past Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame has filed a lawsuit on behalf of his client, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, Member of Parliament (MP) for Old Tafo, against the Attorney-General at the Supreme Court, challenging the procedural legality of President Mahama’s actions concerning the potential removal of the Chief Justice.

Assafuah, acting as a concerned citizen under Article 2(1)(b) of the 1992 Constitution, seeks several declarations from the Supreme Court, whose original jurisdiction he is invoking, regarding the interpretation of constitutional provisions governing the removal of a Chief Justice.

The suit argues that the President must notify the Chief Justice and obtain the comments of the Chief Justice before initiating consultation with the Council of State on the matter.

On Tuesday, the presidency announced that President John Mahama was consulting the Council of State following three petitions to his office demanding the removal of the CJ.

Key reliefs sought by Vincent Ekow Assafuah’s suit
The plaintiff requests the court to declare that:

The President must notify the Chief Justice and obtain their comments before referring a removal petition to the Council of State, as per Articles 146(1), (2), (4), (6), and (7), 23, 57(3), and 296 of the Constitution.

Failure to notify the Chief Justice before initiating the consultation process with the Council of State is a violation of Article 146(6) and undermines the constitutional protection of the Chief Justice’s security of tenure.

Any omission in this process amounts to unjustified interference with the independence of the judiciary, contravening Articles 127(1) and (2) of the Constitution.

The President’s failure to obtain the Chief Justice’s comments before triggering the removal process violates the right to a fair hearing, rendering the consultation process null and void.

Any other reliefs deemed appropriate by the Court.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the matter in the coming weeks, with the Attorney-General required to respond within fourteen (14) days of service.