Professor Henry Kwasi Prempeh, Executive Director of CDD-Ghana and Chairman of the Constitutional Review Committee, has called for major reforms to Ghana’s judicial removal process. He cites secrecy and conflicts of interest surrounding the process under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.
In a Facebook post reacting to the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, Prof. Prempeh raised concerns about the lack of transparency in the removal process.
He advocates for making public the findings and outcomes of removal proceedings, including grounds and supporting evidence.
Prof. Prempeh also suggests that sitting judges should not be part of the removal committee for Chief Justices, proposing retired jurists or public servants instead. He recommends a more inclusive and neutral process for selecting committee members.
Key Recommendations:
– Make public the findings and outcomes of removal proceedings
– Exclude sitting judges from removal committees for Chief Justices
– Use retired jurists or public servants in removal committees
– Implement a more inclusive and neutral process for selecting committee members
Below is his post on Facebook
“I have at least two problems with Article 146 in its present form. First, is the secrecy or lack of transparency concerning the removal petition? Even if the removal proceedings must be held in camera, I believe that, at the minimum, the findings and outcome of the proceedings, including the grounds and supporting evidence behind the removal petition, must be made public after the fact–that is, whether or not the petition succeeds.
The public must not be kept in the dark as to why a removal petition failed or succeeded. In the interest of justice, I believe the grounds and evidence in support of the committee’s decision, whichever way it goes, must be made public, so that the public, too, can judge for themselves as to whether justice was served in the matter.
Second, I think that, where the removal petition pertains to a Chief Justice, no sitting judge should be included in the five-person removal committee that is constituted to hear the petition.
In other words, none of the CJ’s judicial peers must be made to sit in judgment on a removal petition involving their judicial colleague or “boss”, as they are likely to have an interest in the outcome of the case.
We could use retired jurists or other retired career public servants, preferably appointed by a special committee of the Council of State, in place of sitting judges. The three other nonlawyer members of the removal committee could also be selected through a more politically inclusive, diverse, or neutral process, as opposed to being appointed, as Article 146 currently provides, by the President in consultation with the Council of State.
Better to keep a President out of the removal process, except to implement, after the fact, the final outcome of the process as determined by an independent removal committee. My two cents”