Accra, Ghana – The ongoing legal challenges mounted by a former Chief Justice against her removal from office have evolved into one of the most consequential constitutional cases in Ghana’s democratic history.
The former Chief Justice is seeking a judicial review to set aside the recommendations of the Article 146 committee that led to her removal, arguing that the findings were “unreasonable,” “unfounded,” and “perverse.”
At the core of the challenge is a call for the court to nullify the entire removal process, asserting that the committee’s conclusions lack evidentiary and legal foundation. The former Chief Justice contends that her alleged acts of “stated misbehaviour” and “incompetence” were mischaracterised, citing three key points: the mislabeling of a workplace transgression as misconduct sufficient for removal; an unfair attribution of financial responsibility despite no surcharge or disallowance by the Auditor-General; and the interpretation of her recommendation for a judicial promotion as misbehaviour.
Get more exclusive breaking news updates on our WhatsApp channel .
RelatedNews
A parallel issue concerns whether Parliament should pause the vetting of a new Chief Justice while the case is pending. Her legal team argues that the executive and legislative branches should “stay their hand” to respect the separation of powers and prevent undermining the judicial process. The emphasis, however, remains on a substantive order to invalidate the removal rather than an interlocutory injunction to restrain Parliament.
Legal observers describe the case as unprecedented, noting that “Ghana has never in this manner removed a Chief Justice before.” The proceedings raise fundamental issues about judicial independence, administrative fairness, and the scope of judicial review over the findings of a constitutionally established committee. The former Chief Justice maintains that her right to a fair hearing includes access to the full committee report, allowing her to examine how facts were interpreted to reach the contested conclusions.
A significant legal debate centres on the status of the Article 146 committee itself. The 1999 Supreme Court precedent in the Dr Emmanuel Jacob Oong case treated such committees as equivalent to Commissions of Inquiry, whose reports carried the legal weight of High Court judgments. However, contemporary legal reasoning challenges this view, asserting that the committee lacks such judicial authority and that its findings can be reviewed by the High Court through supervisory jurisdiction for breaches of procedural fairness or administrative justice.
The outcome of this debate could redefine how removal proceedings under Article 146 are challenged and reviewed in the future. Analysts suggest that if the court finds the removal process unlawful, there is no legal barrier to reinstating the former Chief Justice, even if a successor has already been appointed.
The case also raises practical questions about her status as a Justice of the Supreme Court should her removal be upheld, since the position of Chief Justice is derived from that role.
Beyond the courtroom, the former Chief Justice has filed a separate case at the ECOWAS Court of Justice, reflecting her continued faith in judicial remedies both domestically and regionally. As proceedings continue, the case stands as a critical test of Ghana’s constitutional resilience, judicial independence, and the boundaries of executive influence over the bench.
