The Centre for Democratic Movement (CDM) has said the Committee formed to investigate petitions filed against Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo is politically compromised and therefore has doubts it would be impartial, avoid bias and not take sides in its work.
A statement issued by the CDM said the neutrality of any committee tasked with reviewing the conduct of the nation’s highest judicial officer must be unimpeachable.
“However, in this case, the makeup of the investigative committee is marred by political affiliations and past controversies, undermining both its perceived and actual impartiality” the CDM statement noted.
The CDM’s concerns were in respect of the five-member committee of eminent persons from the from the legal, military, academic, and public service sectors constituted by President John Mahama to investigate petitions against the Chief Justice of Ghana.
The formation of the Committee is fortified under Article 146(6) of the Constitution, comprises the following individuals but the CDM says it is a largely politically biased one because of four key members.
Explaining the basis for its suspicion, the CDM said the Committee Chairman- Justice Gabriel Pwamang, was nominated by President John Dramani Mahama on May 12, 2015, and subsequently sworn into office on June 29, 2015 as a Supreme Court Justice.
“Though a respected jurist, his close association with the appointing authority raises unavoidable concerns about independence in a process involving the judiciary’s top office” the statement noted.
The statement further pointed out that a Committee member Mr. Daniel Yaw Domelevo, former Auditor-General, was appointed by President Mahama in the final months of his first term and his tenure was marked by politically charged confrontations, in which he was embroiled in a public dispute over his date of birth and retirement timeline; issues that cast doubt on his suitability for such a delicate role;
It also said another member of the Committee, Professor James Sefah-Dzisah, a University of Ghana academic, was one of several National Democratic Congress-aligned lecturers who publicly opposed the compilation of a new voters’ register ahead of the 2020 elections; an act widely perceived as partisan.
It said the inclusion of Professor James Sefah-Dzisah on the Committee fuels the perception of political motive.
“While the committee includes Justice Asiedu, a nominee of President Akufo-Addo, this lone balance does little to counter the perception that the body is overwhelmingly tilted toward the Executive’s interests”, the CDM statement noted.
It argued further that in a matter of such constitutional gravity, the perception of fairness is inseparable from actual fairness. It said the public must be able to trust that the process is neutral, balanced, and free from political manipulation.
It said the decision of President Mahama to suspend the Chief Justice “constitutes a serious breach of constitutional norms, a direct encroachment on judicial independence, and a dangerous politicization of the judiciary; an institution that must remain impartial, respected, and sacrosanct in any democratic society.
“This development is rendered even more alarming by the composition of the investigative committee appointed to assess the Chief Justice. In its current form, the committee bears significant political coloration and raises legitimate concerns about institutional neutrality and procedural integrity. These combined actions represent a profound threat to the rule of law and the principle of separation of powers”, the CDM statement added.
It said the President’s decision to suspend the Chief Justice before the conclusion of a constitutionally prescribed process constitutes a breach of the express procedural requirements of Article 146, undermines the institutional integrity of the office and erodes the constitutional protections afforded to the Judiciary.
“More critically, this action raises fundamental constitutional concerns under Article 296(c), which mandates that any discretionary authority conferred on a person or body (other than a judge) must be exercised in accordance with clearly published criteria or regulations. No such framework appears to have been made public in this case. Without such guidelines, the use of discretionary power is arbitrary, unregulated, and constitutionally deficient.
“In Ransford France v. Attorney-General, the Supreme Court; through Justice Date-Bah; affirmed that the exercise of discretionary power by administrative and quasi-judicial authorities must comply with Article 296, particularly in situations involving constitutional safeguards. This principle applies with full force in the current case, where the stakes involve the very independence of the judiciary”, the statement added.
The statement called for the “immediate and unconditional reversal of the suspension of Her Ladyship the Chief Justice in accordance with constitutional due process;
“Dissolution and reconstitution of the investigative committee, ensuring a truly independent and politically neutral membership;
“Affirmation of judicial independence as a foundational pillar of the Republic, including constitutional and institutional safeguards against undue Executive influence;
“A parliamentary inquiry or constitutional oversight mechanism to investigate the breach of procedure and propose reforms to prevent the abuse of discretionary power under Article 296;
“Engagement with regional and international mechanisms, including the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, to provide oversight, support, and accountability in line with Ghana’s international obligations,: and also called on “all defenders of constitutional democracy; including the Ghana Bar Association, civil society, religious and traditional leaders, and the media; to rise above partisanship and defend the foundational principles of our Republic.”
