Chief Justice (CJ), Kwasi Anin-Yeboah
The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) has bounced a group calling itself the Alliance for Social Equity and Public Accountability (ASEPA), who are seeking the removal of the Chief Justice (CJ), Kwasi Anin-Yeboah, from office.
The group with virtually no known members but has one Mensah Thompson as its Executive Director, petitioned the human rights body to investigate the Chief Justice on wild allegations of wrongdoing in a supposed $5 million bribery claim levelled against the head of the judiciary by a private legal practitioner called Akwasi Afrifa.
According to CHRAJ, they could not carry out ASEPA’s request sent in on July 12, because the group had already petitioned the presidency over the same issue and said the appropriate forum to have such a case dealt with, at this stage, is at the presidency and not the commission.
CHRAJ Letter
A letter to ASEPA, signed by CHRAJ boss Joseph Whittal, said “since the matter is pending in the appropriate constitutional forum, the commission, in the exercise of its discretion under Section 13 of Act 456, hereby ceases to investigate the complaint any further as the invocation of the Article 456 proceedings has effectively taken the matter out of the forum of the commission.”
The letter said “whilst the commission was conducting preliminary investigations into the instant complaint, it was brought to its attention that the complainant (ASEPA) has also petitioned the President of the Republic under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution for the removal of the respondent as Chief Justice, grounding the petition on the same allegations of bribery and corruption. The said petition was submitted to the Office of the President on the 13th of July 2021, a day after the instant complaint was lodged with the commission.”
CHRAJ then said that because the group was seeking the removal of the Chief Justice from office, the appropriate forum for such demands to be met was the Presidency.
“Whilst it may be conceded that the complainant in the instant matter before the commission did not claim, as a specific relief, the removal of the respondent, it is discernible from its invocation of Article 146 that, that is the ultimate destination of the complainant. The procedure for the removal of a Chief Justice having been specifically provided for in Article 146, it is our considered view that the provisions of the said Article take precedence over the general provisions of Article 218,” the commission said.
Discretionary Power
CHRAJ insisted that it has the discretionary power to decide what to do when confronted with situations like this, saying “Section 13(1) gives discretion to the commission when confronted with a situation such as this, where there is provision of law, as set out in Article 146 to deal with matters of this nature, and the complainant has taken advantage of it as evidenced by its petition to the President under the said Article, to refuse to investigate the matter.”
Council of State
Last Friday, the Council of State submitted its findings on the same petition for the removal of the Chief Justice to President Akufo-Addo.
The Chief Justice, when the issue came to his attention, called for a police probe into the allegation he described as spurious.
The President then referred ASEPA’s petition to the Council of State as stipulated by law to ascertain whether or not there is a prima facie case against the Chief Justice to warrant a further investigation or his removal.
Chairman of the Council, Nana Otuo Serebour II, who presented the Council’s findings last Friday, said in line with the demands of the constitution as enshrined in Article 146,123 and in line with the decisions of the Supreme Court, the Council was obliged to determine whether a prima facie case had been made, which determination would therefore precede the process of impeachment.
He said they had looked at the petition sent to them by the President with all documentary evidence attached as well as the document that was presented together with the petition, and also the principles of the case as stated in the case of Adjei Twum versus the Republic judgment of the Supreme Court given by Justice Date-Bah.
“Mr. President, the Council of State has made its findings and we are here to present to you the findings of the Council of State as to whether a prima facie case had been made to warrant the start of an impeachment process for the removal of the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana,” he said.
Nana Response
“I know that in your midst are formidable jurists so the necessary guidance that the rest of you the lay men in the Council of State had including the Archbishop and the others, that guidance had been well given,” President Akufo-Addo said at a meeting with the Council when the report was being submitted.
He lauded the Council for the work done and gave the assurance that he would assess the report because his understanding is that Adjei Twum and another versus the Attorney General which was the case law that had been the understanding of Article 146 binding all of the country, required that he consults with the Council to make the determination of whether the petition that had been sent to him had raised some prima facie case warranting the establishment of a committee as preliminary step.
“I understand that the process of the impeachment of the Chief Justice and indeed, Justices of the Supreme Court, are meant to be in camera proceedings, so that the content of the consultations between the two of us, your side as in the letter and my own, will for the time being, remain confidential until we are in the position to announce the results of it to the world,” President Akufo-Addo explained.
“There are a few people out there who have made some misguided and unreflecting comments on the standing and the efficacy of your body but from where I sit, I recognise fully the value of this institution and the work that you have been doing for me and for the country, both in the first term and in this term, so I would like to put that on record,” he said about the role of the Council.
He, therefore, promised to apprise the Council of his own findings on the matter, and expressed hope that there would be a meeting of minds to establish unanimity on the matter.
Earlier Rejection
Earlier on August 4, President Akufo-Addo rejected the request by ASEPA to immediately suspend the CJ, describing it as premature.
Responding to ASEPA’s request which was widely circulated in the media,, the Secretary to the President, Nana Bediatuo Asante, expressed reservation why he said “within minutes of picking up our letter dated 26th July, 2021 with reference number OPS307/21/843 from the Office of the President, you caused it to be circulated on social media,” saying “we consider such behaviour highly irresponsible and ill-advised.”
That, he said, was because “per Article 146 (8) of the Constitution, all proceedings under Article 146 shall be held in camera,” a provision according to him, the Supreme Court has interpreted to include the petition and all incidental papers.
The statement therefore, asked Mensah Thompson and his ASEPA group not be only be mindful that the processes are confidential, but be guided accordingly so as not to be in contempt of the Supreme Court.
Vital Information
The statement also insisted that the correspondence from the Office of the President did not fall short of providing any vital information as Mensah Thompson alleged in his letter under reference and that, “in accordance with law, the President, in consultation with the Council of State, must determine whether or not the petition you submitted, invoking Article 146 (6) proceedings against the Chief Justice, discloses a prima facie case.”
“It is only when such a determination is made in the affirmative that the President will be required to proceed with appointing a committee, again in consultation with the Council of State, to inquire into the petition,” the statement explained.
So far, the President’s Executive Secretary said the President has commenced the consultation process, which according to the correct position of the law, begins with a prima facie determination.
In that regard, Secretary to the President noted with emphasis “we are not aware of any law, rule or practice that requires a petitioner to be furnished with what you describe as vital information and, therefore, it could not have been contemplated that the information you requested in your letter would have been made available to you in any event.”
Instead, the statement indicated that “in our view, having submitted the petition, nothing more is required of you in the matter to warrant any reports being made to you, further to our acknowledgement of receipt.”