The Centre for Democratic Movement (CDM) has condemned what it describes as a “constitutionally questionable” and “dangerously politicised” decision by President John Mahama to suspend the Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo.
In a press statement, the CDM warned that the president’s action “constitutes a serious breach of constitutional norms, a direct encroachment on judicial independence, and a dangerous politicisation of the judiciary.”
It stressed that such a move threatens to “erode the impartiality, respect, and sacrosanct nature of an institution that must remain above political interference.”
At the heart of the CDM’s concerns is the composition and mandate of the investigative committee tasked with reviewing allegations against the Chief Justice.
The Centre called the body a “political tribunal,” marred by “significant political colouration” and lacking the neutrality essential for such a sensitive constitutional matter.
“This development is rendered even more alarming by the composition of the investigative committee appointed to assess the Chief Justice,” CDM said.
“In its current form, the committee bears significant political colouration and raises legitimate concerns about institutional neutrality and procedural integrity.”
The Centre argues that the president’s decision to suspend the Chief Justice before the conclusion of any constitutionally prescribed process is not only premature but also unlawful.
Citing Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution and precedent from the case Frank Agyei-Twum v. Attorney General & Bright Akwettey, CDM said the president’s move “undermines the institutional integrity of the office and erodes the constitutional protections afforded to the judiciary.”
Read also: Defending constitutionalism: Condemnation of the strange suspension of Chief Justice
More critically, CDM said the exercise of presidential discretion in this matter violates Article 296(c) of the Constitution, which requires any such authority to be exercised in accordance with clearly published criteria.
“No such framework appears to have been made public in this case,” the Centre asserted. “Without such guidelines, the use of discretionary power is arbitrary, unregulated, and constitutionally deficient.”
Citing Ransford France v. Attorney-General, the CDM reminded the president that “the exercise of discretionary power by administrative and quasi-judicial authorities must comply with Article 296, particularly in situations involving constitutional safeguards.”
The composition of the investigative committee, according to the CDM, raises further alarm.
The inclusion of Daniel Yaw Domelevo, Justice Gabriel Pwamang, and Professor James Sefah-Dzisah was described as evidence of political manipulation.
“Mr. Domelevo’s tenure was marked by politically charged confrontations,” CDM noted, while raising concerns over “Justice Pwamang’s appointment by President Mahama” and Professor Sefah-Dzisah’s “publicly partisan stance against a new voters’ register in 2020.”
While acknowledging the inclusion of Justice Asiedu, a nominee of President Akufo-Addo, CDM argued that “this lone balance does little to counter the perception that the body is overwhelmingly tilted toward the Executive’s interests.”
“In a matter of such constitutional gravity, the perception of fairness is inseparable from actual fairness,” the statement stressed.
“The public must be able to trust that the process is neutral, balanced, and free from political manipulation.”
The Centre also invoked international law, stating that the current process violates Ghana’s obligations under Article 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) and contravenes the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.
“This setup violates international norms,” CDM declared, noting that both the UN and the African Commission have guidelines requiring independent, transparent, and impartial disciplinary procedures for judges.
“This suspension sets a perilous precedent,” the Centre warned. “It encourages Executive interference in independent institutions, fosters mistrust in the judicial system, and weakens constitutional checks and balances.”
Calling the move part of a larger pattern of Executive overreach, CDM said: “This is not an isolated incident. It is part of an emerging trend cloaked in legality but corrosive to the democratic fabric of the nation.”
In response to this growing constitutional crisis, CDM issued five urgent demands: the immediate and unconditional reversal of the Chief Justice’s suspension, the dissolution and reconstitution of the investigative committee, affirmation of judicial independence through constitutional safeguards, a parliamentary inquiry into the procedural breaches, and engagement with regional and international bodies to ensure oversight and accountability.
“We call on all defenders of constitutional democracy, including the Ghana Bar Association, civil society, religious and traditional leaders, and the media, to rise above partisanship and defend the foundational principles of our Republic,” the CDM urged.
In closing, the Centre delivered a pointed reminder: “This moment demands vigilance, not silence. Ghana’s democratic future cannot be bartered for political gain. The Constitution must not be weaponised, and the judiciary must not be punished for its independence.”
“The Centre for Democratic Movement remains resolute in its mission to defend constitutionalism, uphold justice, and safeguard the future of democratic governance in Ghana.”
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.