Current Procedure For Removing Chief Justice Is Unfair – Council Of State Member And Former Chief Justice

Former Chief Justice Sophia Abena Boafoa Akuffo has described the current constitutional provisions for the suspension and removal of a Chief Justice as unfair and in need of urgent reform. Speaking before the eight-member Constitutional Review Committee recently established by the President, she argued that the process outlined in Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution lacks sufficient safeguards and should be made more stringent to ensure fairness.

Justice Akuffo, who appeared before the committee on Wednesday, April 30, proposed key amendments, including the introduction of an appeal process for a Chief Justice found culpable of misconduct by the President’s five-member investigative committee. Under the current framework, the committee’s decision is final, with no opportunity for appeal—a situation she believes undermines judicial independence and due process.

Proposal for an Independent Investigative Body

Drawing inspiration from Kenya’s judicial system, Justice Akuffo suggested that an independent commission—comprising experts and impartial individuals—should handle investigations into alleged misconduct by the Chief Justice, rather than a committee appointed by the President. She emphasized that such a body would enhance transparency and reduce potential political influence in the process.

Current Constitutional Provisions Under Scrutiny

Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution mandates that in cases involving the Chief Justice, the President, in consultation with the Council of State, appoints a committee consisting of:

• Two Supreme Court Justices (one as chairperson),

• Three non-lawyers who are not members of Parliament or the Council of State.

This committee investigates the petition and recommends whether the Chief Justice should be removed (Article 146(7)). While the accused is entitled to a defense (Article 146(8)), the President must act on the committee’s recommendations (Article 146(9)) and may suspend the Chief Justice pending investigation (Article 146(10)(a)).

Justice Akuffo’s critique centers on the lack of an appeals mechanism and the potential for executive influence, given the President’s role in appointing the committee.

Broader Constitutional Review Discussions

The session, facilitated by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), also featured contributions from other prominent figures, including:

• Sam Okudzeto, former Council of State member,

• Prof. Aaron Mike Oquaye, former Speaker of Parliament.

Key topics discussed included:

• Natural resource governance and ensuring host communities benefit more from resource exploitation,

• Election of Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Chief Executives (MMDCEs),

• The 50% ministerial appointment rule from Parliament,

• The role of the Council of State and whether it should be retained or abolished.

Justice Akuffo’s proposals highlight growing concerns over judicial independence and the need for constitutional reforms to strengthen accountability mechanisms. As the Constitutional Review Committee continues its engagements, her recommendations could shape future amendments to ensure a more transparent and impartial process for handling judicial misconduct cases at the highest level.

The committee, chaired by Prof. H. Kwasi Prempeh, is expected to compile insights from these discussions and submit recommendations for potential constitutional revisions.

Source: GhanaFeed.Com