By Prof. Ama Asare-Danso, Constitutional Law Scholar
The joint statement issued by the Bar Council of England and Wales and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) raises serious concerns regarding the suspension of the Chief Justice of Ghana. While the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law are universally cherished, the tone and demands of the statement reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of Ghana’s sovereign legal framework and its ongoing domestic processes.
This rebuttal addresses the specific assertions made in the statement, affirming that Ghana is acting within its constitutional mandate in addressing matters of judicial conduct. External bodies must respect the nation’s legal autonomy and refrain from premature judgments.
- The Primacy of the Constitution of Ghana
The statement references Article 146 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, which governs the removal of superior court justices. However, it selectively presents the facts, omitting that the government’s actions appear to be in strict adherence to this article.
Article 146(6) states:
“Where the petition is for the removal of the Chief Justice, the President shall, acting in consultation with the Council of State, appoint a committee to inquire into the petition and recommend to the President whether the Chief Justice ought to be removed from office.”
Further, Article 146(10) empowers the President to suspend the Chief Justice “acting in accordance with the advice of the Council of State.” The appointment of a committee and the suspension of the Chief Justice are not arbitrary acts but constitutionally prescribed procedures for addressing grave concerns. The claim that the suspension is “prima facie in clear breach” of Ghana’s constitutional duties misrepresents the legal process.
- Domestic Legal Recourse and Respect for Rule of Law
The Chief Justice has filed lawsuits in both Ghanaian courts and the ECOWAS Court of Justice. This underscores the strength of Ghana’s legal system and its commitment to the rule of law. The judiciary is actively engaged in resolving the matter, and the Chief Justice is exercising her right to seek redress.
External bodies should not presuppose the outcome of these proceedings. Rather than issuing sweeping condemnations or demanding reinstatement, they should allow Ghana’s legal institutions to function without interference. Their intervention risks undermining the very principles of non-interference and judicial independence they purport to defend.
- The Latimer House Principles and Contextual Application
The statement invokes the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles, which advocate for safeguards in disciplinary proceedings. While these principles are valuable, they are not rigid mandates. Their application must be sensitive to the constitutional context of each member state.
The claim that the investigating committee denied the Chief Justice’s legal representative “the respect required” is vague and unsupported. Article 146(8) of Ghana’s Constitution guarantees the right to legal representation:
“The justice in question shall be heard in his defence by himself or by a lawyer or other expert of his choice.”
Any alleged procedural irregularities are matters for Ghana’s courts to adjudicate—not grounds for external condemnation.
- Precedents in Commonwealth Jurisdictions
The removal of a Chief Justice is a serious matter, and procedures for such actions are intentionally rigorous. Ghana’s constitutional process is consistent with practices in other Commonwealth nations:
- Sri Lanka (2013): Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake was impeached through a parliamentary process, controversial but constitutionally grounded.
- Trinidad and Tobago: Judicial discipline involves the President, a tribunal of inquiry, and the Judicial and Legal Service Commission—demonstrating a blend of executive and judicial oversight.
These examples affirm that Ghana’s approach under Article 146 is not anomalous but aligned with Commonwealth norms.
Conclusion
The statement from the CLA and the Bar Council, though perhaps well-intentioned, constitutes an overreach that disregards Ghana’s sovereignty and constitutional integrity. By demanding immediate reinstatement and alleging constitutional breaches without substantiation, they undermine the very legal processes they claim to uphold.
Ghana, as a sovereign nation with a robust constitutional framework, is fully capable of resolving matters of judicial conduct through its established legal channels. The Chief Justice’s recourse to both domestic and regional courts is evidence of this strength. External bodies must respect Ghana’s autonomy and allow its institutions to function without interference.
Let the rule of law prevail within Ghana’s borders, and on Ghana’s terms.
