Dear Kwame Okotobrigya,
I loved every bit of your piece including your insights into history. The interference by Kwame
Nkrumah in dismissing the Chief Justice (CJ) without reason and appointing a replacement
perceived to be aimed at overturning a judgement to have his opponents convicted, is
undoubtedly a harrowing part of our history.
It reminds me of the perception of President’s Kuffour’s move to appoint Justice Afreh unto the
Supreme Court to overturn a ruling in favour of Tsatsu Tsikata in the Fast Track Court
constitutionality case. President Kuffour was successful, his perceived hired assassin duly
delivered, and the victory Tsatsu thought he had nailed was overturned. Some argue that the
CJ’s hands were tied because there weren’t enough justices of the Supreme Court for a review
to be considered. But one may ask, did Justice E.K Wiredu (CJ appointed by President Kuffour)
have to empanel the court with nine (9) out of the ten judges of the time when he was aware of
the possibility of a review process which would require two additional judges? Why did he not
empanel the court with seven (7) judges with three (3) to spare for the possibility of a review?
It was bizarre and fed into public perception that J.A. Kufour was hell bent on incarcerating
Tsatsu Tsikata, an ally of his predecessor, JJ Rawlings. Needless to say, there was no love lost
between them. Whether true or false, just like Nkrumah, the processes were legal. When
one looks back, one can’t help but agree with you that our country truly has a history.
❖ The Answer
I do not seek to be politically correct; I seek to be true to our reality. You asked the question “Have
we reaped the whirlwind?” I am sad to answer, “we have reaped the whirlwind”. And are
growing it into a tsunami, tornado and earthquake all-in-one”. I dare say, it will be Covid 2.0.
Get ready to stay indoors!
❖ Na Who Cause am?
You are right when you say that today’s CJ, our Lady Gertrude, is perceived by some elements of
yesterday’s opposition as an ally of the NPP. In my opinion, it is a mild representation of the facts.
I believe most Ghanaians share in this belief and for which reason it is no wonder that only 13%
of Ghanaians absolutely trust our Judiciary (Afrobarometer -2024) with 52% of Ghanaians
supporting her removal despite no knowledge of impropriety (Global InfoAnalytics-2025).
On reflection, I can’t help but admit that she called it onto herself. First, the perception of her
incestuous relationship with the Executive was widespread and for which reason she had a need
to dispel the perception of biases by the balance of her speak and deeds. Unfortunately, to my
utter shock, she raced to feed the perception by her handling of the Afenyo vs the Speaker of
Parliament case. She empanelled the court at supersonic speed and Sua Ponte subverted
settled legal principles by granting an ex parte application pending the final determination of
the case. It is instructive to note that the applicants initially prayed for a ten-day interim order in
conformity with standard practice, but the court unilaterally converted same into a stay of
execution pending the final determination of the case. It did not help that she led the panel to
maintain this position when the Speaker through counsel sought to set same aside. Indeed, it is
settled law (I am educated) that an ex parte application cannot be granted pending the final
determination of the case. In granting that order, the court was acting contrary to its history and
past rulings. To many political observers and constitutional scholars, the CJ had become a
political wind vane.
The good book she so loves to cite tells us in 1 Corinthians 10:23 that all things may be
permissible, but not all things are beneficial or constructive. In other words, not all you do as a
matter of right may be wise or right.
What was the value in leading the court to sidestep settled legal procedure and practice
and thereby validating and entrenching public perceptions of her unholy alliance with the
ruling executive of the time? I see none. If she had kept to the settled conventions, no harm
would have accrued to her perceived favoured party, and no one will question the purity of her
actions. Did you see the bullying Thaddeus was subjected to in the full glare of the public during
the hearing? Did you hear her rant making false claims that the case was the reason for
Parliament not being able to sit? I am happy Thaddeus humbly schooled her. She undisputedly
and needlessly showed her hand.
You look at her mannerism at the mention of H.E. John Mahama and you wonder, what
amount of dislike she has towards him to make such a public display of her
condescension? Dislike so deep that an occupant of the office of the CJ cannot keep her
composure? Out of respect I shall not attempt to describe that look and cringe. After all, it’s
already public. Such disrespect and condescending conduct are intolerable for that high office.
For god’s sake what did she expect? Confidence and love from the current government?
❖ Political Agenda?
Of the eight Chief Justices appointed under the 1992 constitution, the NDC inherited one from
the PNDC era and appointed one as a government. Its last appointed CJ, Isaac Abban JSC,
retired 3 months into the NPP’s first government of H.E. J.A Kufour. All other six CJs were
appointed by the NPP. In this period the NDC won two elections and successfully, worked with
these NPP appointed CJs without the drama of promoting any attempt to remove the CJ. I do
not hold the opinion that the NDC has a default penchant of ousting CJs they did not appoint.
The evidence vindicates them.
The first politically motivated use of Article 146 to remove officers of our independent
constitutional bodies was under the Akufo-Addo government (NPP) in respect of Charlotte Osei.
The previous use of Article 146 in the case of Lauretta Lamptey and others before can in no way
be said to be politically motivated.
I was present in various conversations with many NPP bigwigs prior and post the inauguration
of Nana Akufo Addo in which many argued that the Electoral Commissioner (EC), Charlotte Osei,
had to be removed by hook or crook. The passion and anger were deep. I did agree that some
of her posturing as EC was dismissive and left much to be desired but could not justify the
desperate need to oust her after delivering an election that gave the NPP its biggest win. In fact,
the 2016 election had a public approval of 87% according to the Afrobarometer report. I
cautioned that we will be setting a very bad precedence and shattering the holy grail, but as is
customary of most of my politician friends, they said, I don’t understand politics. I agree I may
not understand politics, but I respect my policy depth. Prior to Charlotte’s removal, many senior
party officials of the NPP went after her publicly with denigrating epithets, calling her a harlot
and directly insulting her. Needless to say, the political decision had been made and judgment
written even before a technical and procedural justification was sought to legitimize it. We
reaped the whirlwind then, not now.
In our Lady Gertrude’s case, we do not need to look far. We have heard open public narratives
from NDC officials suggesting that she must be ousted. In similar fashion to the NPP under
Akufo-Addo, the political decision seems to have been made. What matters most is whether
the process and grounds for her removal will be honest, competent, fair and just. When it
is all done, I would ask the question, if any senior public official had done the same acts our Lady
Gertrude is accused of, will I find it justified that he/she be removed? If yes, then irrespective of
a prior political decision or not, I will be pleased with the outcome.
The Process
When a tyre under a vehicle cannot deliver on its purpose of helping the vehicle run smoothly,
it must be removed and replaced. The framers of our constitution endeavoured to ensure no
arm of government accrues absoluteness to its powers. It is for this reason that the executive in
many matters require approval from the legislature and the judiciary adjudicates disputes whilst
depending on the executive and legislature for its appointments and budget. Though not
perfect, there is no absoluteness.
It is not for nothing that the constitution provided for the removal of the CJ. That office is too
sensitive for its occupant to stroll through to retirement age if he/she is not living up the high
responsibility and expectations of the office. People forget that the judiciary is the last arbiter
of dispute and that when it loses its moral authority, the natural default is self-help and
civil war.
For such a sensitive role, it goes without saying that those charged with managing the process
of removal, carry a huge responsibility which must be discharged with the highest morality and
integrity. To me, there is no danger in the engagement of the process of removal, the problem
is if the process will be managed with responsibility. If the President chooses to exercise his
powers to remove the CJ when there is no cause to, he will be guilty of abuse of office which is
grounds to trigger his impeachment. So, he is not free to do as he pleases.
If the President abuses office, there is a remedy in parliament and if the President abuses his
office and parliamentarians choose not to act, then they will be failing the nation, and their
constituents should act and remove them from parliament. If the constituents don’t act, then
they fail themselves as citizens and renege on their duties as guardians of the constitution. It is
a chain in which we all have responsibility.
Why am i not against the on-going process? There are petitions the contents of which i don’t
know. Just like you, we have all heard snippets. Some damning and yet to be proven as true.
What if they contain allegations of egregious abuse of office and misconduct that justifies an
inquisition and removal? I am not content with shutting down a process because of some fear
of politicisation. It is unreasonable to assume that the thirty-one (31) or so ‘grey beards’ of the
council of state are so weak and malleable that for political reasons, established prima facie
justification for the inquisition to proceed.
The reality is that the current CJ has not acted to enhance the image, independence and moral
authority of the office. Whether it is perception or reality, she is perceived as an NPP ideologue
who will do anything for the NPP. No one can deny that even if it is just perception, she has done
things to contribute to it and little to undo it. Accountability is one of the duties the
constitution imposes on public office holders, let her answer to the matters raised through
approved procedure. After all, this is what we all agreed that our society must be ordered by.
Source: Senyo Kwasi Hosi
