The Supreme Court Should Respect the Clear Text of Ghana’s Constitution – Kwame Owusu Danso, Esq. writes

Ghana’s 1992 Constitution provides explicit guidelines for removing public officials, such as Superior Court Justices and the Chief Justice, with no room for judicial overreach.

 For Justices other than the Chief Justice, Article 146(3)-(5) mandates that a petition be sent to the President, who refers it to the Chief Justice to assess if a prima facie case exists. If confirmed, a committee investigates and advises the President. The process is straightforward and precise.

In contrast, Article 146(6)-(7) governs the removal of the Chief Justice. Here, the President, consulting the Council of State, forms a committee to investigate a petition and recommend action without any mention of a prima facie case requirement. This distinction is deliberate and clear in the Constitution’s text.

However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Agyei Twum v. Attorney General & Akwetey imposed a prima facie case condition for removing a Chief Justice, a step not supported by the Constitution. 

This judicial addition distorted the framers’ intent, as the original text remains unamended. When the Constitution’s language is unambiguous, courts should not insert new terms under the guise of interpretation; such as the so-called “purposive approach” unless the provision is unclear, which it is not here. 

The framers’ choice to omit a prima facie requirement for the Chief Justice was intentional, not an oversight.

Looking ahead, I urge the Supreme Court, amid current cases and political pressures, to avoid compounding this error. Adding further conditions – like requiring the Chief Justice to respond to a petition before any action – would be another unwarranted rewrite of the Constitution. 

The text does not demand a prima facie case, let alone additional steps. Judicial restraint is essential to preserve clarity and fidelity to the law as written.

Thank you for your attention.  

Kwame Owusu Danso, Esq. 

Africa Law Focus.