Another suit has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the declaration by the President that he had established prima facie against embattled Chief Justice, Her Ladyship Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo.
The suit is file by Centre for Citizenship Constitutional and Electoral Systems LBG (“CENCES”) acting as Plaintiff and is being represented by Acquah Sampson and Associates.
The Defendants are the Attorney General as 1st Defendant, Her Ladyship Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo as 2nd Defendant and His Lordship Gabriel Scott Pwamang (Chairman, Presidential Investigative Committee On Chief Justice’s Removal) as 3rd Defendant. The Plaintiffs are seeking seven reliefs, which are as follows;
- A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 17(1), (2). (3). 23.and 296, 146(1), (2), (3)(4) and (6), of the Constitution, the purported determination by the President communicated by the Secretary to the President dated 22nd April, 2025. in respect of three petitions presented for the removal of the Chief Justice does not constitute a determination of a prima facie case and is therefore null, void and of no effect;
- A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 17(1), (2), (3), 146(1), (2), (3) and (6), 125(3) and (4), 127(1) and (2) of the Constitution, the purported determination by the President communicated by the Secretary to the President that a prima facie case has been established against the Chief Justice contravenes the constitutional prohibition of executive interference with the independence of the Judiciary prohibited by articles 125(3) and (4), 127(1) and (2) and is therefore void;
- A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 146(1), (2), (3), (4), and (6), 23 and 296 of the Constitution, the establishment of a five- member committee to inquire into three petitions against the Chief Justice without a prima facie case duly determined pursuant to article 146 (1), (2), (3), (4), and (6) violates the 2″d Defendant’s right to equal treatment before the law guaranteed under article 17 (1) (2) (3) and right to fair trial under article 19 (13) and so is unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no effect;
- An order restraining the committee set up by the President from proceeding to carry out the terms of reference of the committee set out in the letter dated 2 ~ April, 2025 and or to inquire into the three petitions against the Chief Justice, and to restrain the ~ Defendant from participating in proceedings of the Committee;
- A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 146(1), (2), (3),(4) and (6), 23 and 296 of the Constitution, the warrant for suspension issued by the President to suspend the Chief Justice dated 22nd April, 2025, violates the directions of the Constitution in articles 146 (1), (2), (3), (4), and (6).the 2nd Defendant’s right to fair trial and equal treatment under article 17 and 19 (13), the right to administrative justice under article 23 and article 293, and the constitutional protection of the independence of the Judiciary pursuant to article 125 (3), 127 (1). (2), (3) and is therefore unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect;
- An order striking down the warrant for suspension issued by the President dated 22nd April, 2025 to suspend the Chief Justice, Her ladyship Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo (2nd Defendant) as being arbitrary, capricious, unconstitutional and is therefore null, void and of no effect; Any other order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make.
- Any other order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make.
Two days ago, the Presidency had announced that the Pwamang Committee was about to begin its work and it remains to be seen the effect that this latest development would have on the Process.
