–BY Daniel Bampoe
The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has issued a carefully worded but firm statement on the ongoing constitutional process to remove the Chief Justice of the Republic, urging all parties involved to adhere strictly to the rule of law and constitutional procedure.
This comes in the wake of increasing public debate and legal actions surrounding the suspension of the Chief Justice by President John Mahama.
The GBA’s intervention follows weeks of mounting tension over the fate of the country’s top judicial officer.
As of March 27, 2025, the Association had confirmed that three separate petitions seeking the Chief Justice’s removal had been submitted.
In parallel, two legal suits were also filed at the Supreme Court, challenging the legitimacy of the removal procedure and seeking injunctions to halt the process.
Citing Articles 146 (6) to (10) of the 1992 Constitution, the GBA clarified that the removal of a sitting Chief Justice must follow a very specific process.
According to the Constitution, once a petition is filed, the President, in consultation with the Council of State, is required to appoint a five-member committee—comprising two Justices of the Supreme Court (one of whom chairs the committee), and three non-lawyers who are not members of Parliament or the Council of State.
This committee is then tasked with investigating the petition and making a recommendation on whether the Chief Justice should be removed.
The Constitution further states that the committee’s sittings must be held in camera, and that the President, upon advice from the Council of State, may suspend the Chief Justice while investigations are underway.
It is this constitutional clause that formed the basis for the President’s recent decision to suspend the Chief Justice—a move that has sharply divided legal and political commentators.
In its statement dated April 24, 2025, the GBA acknowledged that the matter is now sub judice but underscored the importance of respecting constitutional norms and upholding the rule of law.
The Association emphasized that every individual involved in the process—regardless of the scale of their role—must act with fairness, impartiality, and in accordance with Article 296 of the Constitution, which governs the exercise of discretionary power.
“Justice emanates from the good people of Ghana and is administered by the Judiciary headed by the Chief Justice,” the GBA stressed, adding that any action which undermines judicial independence risks weakening public confidence in the country’s democratic institutions.
Though the GBA stopped short of directly criticizing the President’s decision, the tone of the statement appeared to caution against any politically motivated attempt to undermine the judiciary.
The Bar reaffirmed its mandate to act as the guardian of the justice delivery system, pledging to continue serving as the “voice of the voiceless” and to defend the Constitution.
This is not the first time the judiciary has come under political scrutiny in Ghana.
The balance of power between the executive and judicial branches has often been tested, especially during transitions between governments of opposing political affiliations.
The current episode marks yet another moment where Ghana’s democratic institutions are being called upon to demonstrate their resilience.
However, as the committee begins its work and legal challenges play out at the Supreme Court, public attention remains fixed on whether the constitutional process will be adhered to fully—and whether justice will not only be done but also seen to be done.
