Private legal practitioner Thaddeus Sory has slammed the recent Supreme Court proceedings in the Vincent Ekow Assafuah injunction application, describing the chorus of complaints as an “incongruous cacophony” of contradictions.
Thaddeus Sory said the assertions made about the Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe Bonnie’s role in the proceedings are baseless and lack merit.
“Is the Acting Chief Justice automatically a beneficiary or loser based on how the injunction is decided? The answer is an unequivocal NO!” Sory wrote in a lengthy post shared on Facebook.
Thaddeus Sory argued that the Acting Chief Justice occupies the role by law, not by appointment, and therefore does not stand to gain or lose from the outcome of the injunction.
“If the decision favours the suspended CJ, she resumes office. If it goes against her, the President is then empowered to appoint a new CJ,” he explained.
The lawyer also pointed out inconsistencies in the arguments presented, citing the precedent of Tuffuor v Attorney-General.
“The Acting CJ rebutted it pointedly by asking: ‘In Tuffuor, who was the most senior Justice?’ The answer: Sowah JSC. He not only sat on the case but presided and authored the decision,” Sory noted.
Thaddeus Sory further questioned the logic behind claims that the original panel in the Vincent Assafuah application was improperly changed, pointing out that the Supreme Court has well-established precedents on this matter.
“Ironically, the most recent judgment affirming this principle was authored by the suspended CJ herself,” he added.
Thaddeus Sory called for “congruent reflection and reasoned propositions” to replace the “incongruous cacophony of contradictions.”
“Let us move from incongruity to integrity,” Sory urged.
During the hearing of the injunction application filed by Vincent Ekow Assafuah, the Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, seeking to stop the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo from office, his counsel, Godfred Yeboah Dame, argued that Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie had a conflict of interest as he could be directly affected by the outcome.
However, Deputy Attorney-General Srem-Sai countered, asserting that the claim of personal benefit was a misconception and did not compromise Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s impartiality.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court, in a 3-2 majority decision, dismissed the case, allowing the continuation of the processes for the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo.
