The Chief Justice, Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo has dismissed the petition allegedly forwarded by the former Special Prosecutor, Martin Amidu that sought to remove his successor, Kissi Agyebeng from office.
According to Joy News sources, the Chief Justice determined that the factual and legal foundation of the petition fall short of the standard required to establish a prima facie case for the removal of the special prosecutor
The petition, dated April 30, 2024, was reportedly sent to the President by Mr Amidu and conveyed to Justice Gertrude Torkonoo on May 6, 2024.
Mr Amidu alleged procurement breaches in the purchase of vehicles for the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) and abuses involving judges and the administration of justice.
Other allegations include violations of citizens’ rights through arrests and detentions, violations of the right to information, and improper appointments of personnel to the office.
Mr Amidu also claimed that by arresting individuals such as Cecilia Dapaah and Prof Frimpong Boateng, the Special Prosecutor abused his office.
Meanwhile, in a piece circulating online and purported to have been written by Mr Martin Amidu, he’s seen criticising the conclusion reached by the Chief Justice on the matter.
He stated that, “I have today received a one-page letter from the Presidency with reference number OSP 307/24/659 dated 2 July 2024 notifying me that: “…. the Honourable Chief Justice, Mrs. Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, has submitted her review of the existence or absence of a prima facie case with respect to your petition.” I was then informed that: “In accordance with section 15 (3) of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017, the Chief Justice determined that the factual and legal foundation of the petition fall short of the standard required to establish a prima facie case for the removal of the Special Prosecutor.”
He added that “I was not given a copy of the “review of the existence or absence of a prima facie case” submitted by the Chief Justice leading to her determination with respect to my petition to aid the accountability and transparency of the outcome. The outcome of the petition was not mine to make, and I ought not normally to have any regrets whatsoever about any outcome made in accordance with the taught traditions of the exercise of judicial discretion, in which a determination is made by the Chief Justice that my petition disclosed no prima facie case for the Special Prosecutor to answer. “
