Dear Members of the Ghana Bar Association,
I have carefully reviewed your press release of 24 April 2025, along with your resolution urging the President to revoke the suspension imposed on the Chief Justice under Article 146(10) of the 1992 Constitution.
I must ask, is this approach truly grounded in law, or have you been coerced into pursuing a line of reasoning that appears more politically motivated than legally sound? As someone with limited legal expertise, I had hoped the Ghana Bar Association would provide a thoughtful, legally grounded roadmap for addressing the issue at hand. Instead, your stance seems to position the Bar as an extension of a political faction rather than as a steadfast guardian of legal principles.
When legal provisions fail to directly address a matter, what approach do judges typically adopt in such cases? Does this approach mirror the course of action you are advocating? You claim to have compared the petition against Araba’s response and found no prima facie case. But I must ask: are you the designated body empowered to determine whether a prima facie case exists in such matters? Moreover, how did you come to possess the petitions and responses to assess their merits when the committee is still in the process of deliberation?
It has long been a fundamental principle that the merits of cases under adjudication should not be discussed outside of the judicial body responsible for the matter. Does this principle not apply to the committee that is currently handling this issue? A bad law remains a law until it is changed. I trust that you, as experienced professionals, are fully aware of this. It is clear that Araba’s conditions of service and tenure have not been breached. The Constitution and relevant laws provide clear procedures for the discipline, suspension, and removal of judges, and these must be followed diligently.
Your call for the President to deviate from his constitutional duties undermines the rule of law. In effect, you are asking him to abandon his oath of office to uphold the Constitution, so that you can act as petitioners, demanding his impeachment for adhering to the law. Furthermore, I ask: has the independence of the judiciary truly been threatened? To my knowledge, the independence of the judiciary remains intact, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
The Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in 1985 and subsequently endorsed by the UN General Assembly, provide clear guidelines. These principles assert that the judiciary must operate free from improper influence, and decisions must be made impartially, based on facts and law.
Key Principles of Judicial Independence:
1. The independence of the judiciary must be guaranteed by the State and enshrined in law, with all institutions respecting this independence.
2. Judges must be free to decide matters before them impartially, without undue influence from any quarter.
3. Judges must have jurisdiction over judicial matters, and their decisions should not be subject to revision by any other body, except for the courts themselves.
4. Disciplinary, suspension, or removal proceedings against judges must adhere to established legal procedures, ensuring fair treatment.
Even in your disdain for President Mahama, you have failed to provide any evidence, whether overt or covert, that he has undermined judicial independence following the principles outlined above. This only further exposes your association as one that disregards the Constitution and is willing to deviate from its clear mandates.
In closing, it is crucial that we safeguard the integrity of our judiciary and uphold the rule of law. Until the process of judicial appointments is reconsidered and the discretion currently vested in the President is addressed, no judge should operate with impunity under the guise of security of tenure.
I urge you to carefully consider the long-term consequences of your stance and its potential harm to our legal system. Preserving public trust in the judiciary and ensuring that the law is upheld consistently by all is paramount.
Yours sincerely,
Charles McCarthy
Writer and Public Interest Advocate
