The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed an injunction application, seeking to halt the suspension of the Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, by President John Dramani Mahama.
The Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, who filed the application, was represented in court by former Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame.
In a 3-2 majority decision, a five-member panel of the highest court of the land, presided over by the acting Chief Justice, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, dismissed the application filed by the lawmaker Assafuah.
Justices Baffoe-Bonnie, Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi and Tanko Amadu were on the majority, while Justices Professor Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu and Ernest Gaewu dissented.
The court did not give full reasoning behind the decision which it said will be ready by May 21.
The injunction application is part of a broader legal challenge involving the suspension of the Chief Justice, which has raised significant constitutional questions about due process and judicial independence.
The legal team opposing the suspension had argued that continuing proceedings without resolving preliminary questions would compromise the integrity of the judicial process.
However, the majority of the panel disagreed, stating that there were insufficient grounds to justify halting the case at this stage.
Earlier yesterday, the Supreme Court overruled an objection which was seeking the recusal of the acting Chief Justice, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, from the panel hearing an injunction against the suspension of Chief Justice Torkornoo.
In a unanimous decision, the five-member panel of the court held that the objection had no merit.
The objection was raised by a former A-G, Godfred Yeboah Dame, lawyer for the applicant, who argued that Justice Baffoe -Bonnie had a personal interest in the application for injunction as it could affect his status as Acting Chief Justice.
However, the court held that the position of Acting Chief Justice was created under Article 144 (6) of the Constitution and whoever occupied it could not be said to have a personal interest.
“The objection is unmeritorious and consequently overruled,” the court held.
According to counsel, the outcome of the case had the potential to affect the status of the suspended Chief Justice and the Acting Chief Justice and therefore it was in the interest of justice for Justice Baffoe -Bonnie not to be part of the panel.
Mr Dame added that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie had assumed all the powers of the Chief Justice and therefore ought not to be on panel.
“It important that justice must not be seen to be done but must be manifestly seen to be done,” he added
Mr Dame cited three cases involving the status of the Chief Justice, and stated that in all those cases the Chief Justice, although had the power to empanel did not include himself to the panel.
Response
In his response, the Deputy A-G, Dr Justice Srem-Sai described the objection as “misconceived” and urged the court to overrule it.
It was his submission that the position of Acting Chief Justice came with duties and not any personal interest.
Again, he argued that it was the position of the law that in any constitutional matter as is currently the case, neither the parties nor the judges were deemed to have any personal interest.
The Deputy A-G further argued the objection was also misconceived because the case involved the substantive Chief Justice and not the Acting Chief Justice.
“It is not the Acting Chief Justice who is the subject matter of removal proceedings, it is the substantive Chief Justice who is still Chief Justice. The objection has no basis in law,” the Deputy A-G argued.
