The Supreme Court panel hearing two applications seeking an injunction on proceedings to remove the Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo from Office has overruled an objection raised by Godfred Yeboah Dame, who is lawyer representing the applicant, Vincent Assfuah. Mr. Dame, raised an objection to the participation of the acting Chief Justice Eugene Baffoe-Bonnie, presiding over the matter with the substantive Chief Justice as the subject matter. The panel overruled the objection relying on Article 144(6)(a) and (b) of the Constitution that in the absence of the Chief Justice, the senior most person at the Supreme Court presides.
Before the hearing of the two suits seeking to injunction President Mahama and the Council of State from further proceedings with process of removing suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, Godfred Yeboah Dame, lawyer for the applicant, raised an objection to the composition of the panel specifically the fact that the proceedings are being presided over by the Acting Chief Justice Paul Eugene Baffoe-Bonnie.
According to the former Attorney-General, the proceedings before the court affect the status of the substantive chief justice and the acting Chief Justice who is a direct beneficial of the Chief Justice’s suspension cannot preside on the case. Mr Dame argued that the situation does not augur well for the administration of justice and has the tendency to lower public confidence of the proceedings are presided over by the acting Chief Justice. To support his argument, he cited three notable instances of which questions relating to the removal of the Chief Justice came before the court but never had an acting Chief Justice empanel him or herself.
Objecting to the concerns raised by the applicant lawyer, Deputy Attorney-General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, said that the contention of the former AG’s objection was gravely misconceived.
According to the Deputy AG, the objection confused two things, the first one was the assumption that an acting position is a personal benefit in the sense that Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie in his acting position was entitled to some personal benefit. Dr. Sai said contrary to that misconception by the applicant’s lawyer, the position of the acting Chief Justice is duty bound and not a personal benefit to whoever is occupying the position. He said the court have held in a long line of cases that when a constitutional matter comes up before the court neither the plaintiff, the defendant or the court stands to gain anything personal. Dr. Srem Sai second position was that it was not the acting Chief Justice who is up for removal, but rather the substantive who is still the Chief Justice and subject matter of the proceedings in question.
Dr Srem Sai further argued that the objection by Mr Dame has no basis in law.