The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed Godfred Dame’s objection to Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie presiding over the injunctions seeking the removal of the Chief Justice, deeming it unmeritorious.
The former Attorney General raised a preliminary legal objection against the acting Chief Justice’s inclusion on the panel of five hearing applications for interlocutory injunction in the removal proceedings against the Chief Justice.
The unanimous decision of the Court, which also includes Justice Omoro Amadu Tanko, Justice Prof. Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Justice Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, and Justice Ernest Gaewu, was that, per the tenor of Article 144(6)(a)(b), clarity was provided regarding the duties.
The panel, while overruling the objection, said it was unmeritorious.
On Tuesday, May 6, a new panel of five, chaired by Acting CJ Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, was to hear the two injunction applications – one from Vincent Ekow Assafuah, a member of Parliament for Old Tafo, and the other from a private citizen, Ebenezer Osei Owusu.
Godfred Yeboah Dame, former Attorney General and counsel for the legislator, objected to the inclusion of the acting CJ as the chair of the panel.
He argued that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie is the direct beneficiary of the suspension of the Chief Justice and therefore should not be on the panel.
While citing three decided cases to buttress his argument, Mr. Dame said justice is not only to be done but manifestly seen to be done.
Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem Sai described the objection as misconceived. Dr. Srem Sai argued that acting as Chief Justice is not for personal benefit but for duties to be performed.
While pointing out the misconceptions, Dr. Srem Sai argued that it is not the acting Chief Justice (Baffoe-Bonnie) who is up for removal, but rather the substantive Chief Justice (Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo), who remains the Chief Justice of the Republic and is the subject of the proceedings in question; therefore, all three cited cases are materially different from the current situation.
It was his submission that, assuming there is a rule of law that the CJ may not empanel himself in a case involving proceedings for removal, that would have settled the case.
He said it was clear from the example given that it is the seniormost member who presides.
Dr. Srem Sai said the objection had no basis and wondered why Godfred Dame described the situation as “inappropriate” rather than saying it was unconstitutional.
End
