The Presidency has clarified that the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo does not imply a declaration of guilt.
Felix Kwakye Ofosu, Spokesperson to President John Dramani Mahama, made this known in an interview with JoyNews shortly after the announcement of the suspension.
According to Kwakye Ofosu, President Mahama’s decision was purely constitutional and procedural, strictly in accordance with Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, which governs investigations into allegations against the Chief Justice.
“The suspension of the Chief Justice does not imply that the President is declaring her guilty,” Kwakye Ofosu explained.
“The President is merely following due constitutional process by suspending her pending the outcome of a formal investigation into the petitions filed against her.”
He said a prima facie case had been established against the Chief Justice after a review of three separate petitions, necessitating the constitution of a five-member committee to investigate the matters raised.
The committee, chaired by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang of the Supreme Court, includes Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, former Auditor-General Daniel Yaw Domelevo, Major Flora Bazwaanura Dalugo of the Ghana Armed Forces, and Professor James Sefah Dzisah of the University of Ghana.
Mr. Ofosu stressed that the Chief Justice’s suspension was necessary to allow for an independent and impartial inquiry, ensuring the integrity of the investigative process without undue influence or interference.
He called on the public to respect the ongoing constitutional process and refrain from making premature judgments until the committee concludes its work and presents its findings.
Meanwhile, the Chairman of the Constitutional Review Committee, Prof. Henry Kwesi Prempeh, has expressed concerns about the process of removing judges, particularly the Chief Justice, under Article 146 of the Constitution
He suggested that the findings and outcome of the proceedings, including the grounds and supporting evidence, should be made public after the fact.
“Even if the removal proceedings must be held in camera, I believe that, at the minimum, the findings and outcome of the proceedings, including the grounds and supporting evidence behind the removal petition, must be made public after the fact,” he stated.
Additionally, Prof. Prempeh expressed concerns about potential conflicts of interest in the composition of the removal committee, particularly when it involves the Chief Justice.
“Where the removal petition pertains to a Chief Justice, no sitting judge should be included in the five-person removal committee that is constituted to hear the petition,” he argued.
Have a news story, press release, or opinion piece you’d like to share with our audience? We’d love to hear from you! Please reach out to us at editor@metrotvonline.com
