A private legal practitioner, Kwame Adofo, has raised serious concerns over what he describes as a “conflict of interest” involving Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe Bonnie, who presided over a Supreme Court panel that struck out a supplementary affidavit filed by the suspended Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo.
Speaking on The Forum on Asaase Radio on Saturday (31 May), Adofo criticised the decision and questioned the neutrality of the Acting CJ, who is temporarily occupying the position following the suspension of Justice Torkornoo amid an ongoing impeachment process.
“The Acting CJ is a direct beneficiary of this case; he is occupying the position while the CJ is being pushed out. Even if he is honest and unbiased, the perception alone should be enough for him to step aside,” Mr Adofo stated.
“If you keep sitting and keep voting against her, it tells the public you have an interest in the outcome. That compromises the whole process,” he warned.
Contention
The five-member panel upheld on Wednesday (28 May) the application filed by the Deputy Attorney General, Justice Srem Sai, finding merit in the argument that the affidavit breached the confidentiality of the committee’s proceedings.
The Acting CJ chaired the panel that delivered the ruling.
Adofo contended that the confidentiality provision should not be interpreted in a way that limits a person’s right to a fair and open defence.
He questioned whether the Supreme Court was inadvertently empowering the committee handling the petition against the CJ to act without accountability.
“Is the Supreme Court telling us that the committee can do whatever it wishes—even if it violates the law—because the matter is being heard in-camera? That is unbelievable.”
“Even in criminal situations, a person is allowed to waive the right to a fair trial or a public hearing. So for the Supreme Court to say constitutional confidentiality cannot be waived is wrong,” Adofo contended.
Further concerns were raised about the committee’s decision to accept witnesses brought by the petitioners, even though the complainants themselves have reportedly refused to give evidence.
“What kind of committee hearing is this?” he asked. “The complainants do not testify, yet they are allowed to call witnesses? That undermines the integrity of the process.”
Background
On 26 May, the suspended Chief Justice filed a damning supplementary affidavit at the Supreme Court, painting a harrowing picture of her treatment in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, which she describes as “a mockery of justice, an assault on judicial independence, and worse than the treatment meted out to persons accused of treason.”
Justice Torkornoo said the process she’s being subjected to constitutes “a complete desecration of my basic constitutional rights to a fair trial, violation of my dignity and subjection to inhuman and degrading treatment, of a kind not meted out to even accused persons on trial for treason.”
The affidavit, filed in support of her motion for an interlocutory injunction to halt the proceedings, outlines a series of alarming developments since she first took legal action on 21 May.
She revealed that despite informing the committee of the suit she filed at the Supreme Court and providing copies of the processes, the committee proceeded with the inquiry the very next day.
