By Jeremiah Asare , Accra , July 14,2025.
Before the esteemed ECOWAS Court, Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem Sai presented a compelling argument: the recent suspension of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was not a unilateral act by the President, but the culmination of a constitutionally grounded and carefully considered process. This defense transcends the particulars of a single decision—it stands as a reaffirmation of the rule of law and of due process in national governance.
Critics have described the suspension as an executive overreach, a presidential imposition that threatens judicial independence. Yet this portrayal disregards the intricate architecture of checks and balances that underpins our legal system. As Dr. Sai clearly articulated, the decision arose from a multi-layered constitutional evaluation involving various legal bodies and established protocols. These safeguards exist precisely to prevent arbitrary action and ensure any decision affecting an office as vital as the Chief Justice is treated with due seriousness and justification.
The assertion that this was “not a singular presidential act” is fundamental. It underscores the President’s role within a framework requiring consultation, investigation, and substantiated reasoning. Far from diminishing democracy, this framework reinforces institutional accountability and reveals the strength of our democratic architecture.
Moreover, the emphasis on “considered reasons” matters greatly. While specifics remain under legal scrutiny, their very existence affirms the legitimacy of the process. This was no impulsive move born of political expediency, but a response to concerns evaluated through constitutionally sound channels. In doing so, the state prevents the abuse of power and ensures that even the most serious allegations are addressed with appropriate gravity.
To challenge this process is, in essence, to challenge the very notion of due process and constitutional governance. It suggests a system in which high officeholders enjoy immunity from oversight—a proposition fundamentally incompatible with equality before the law and responsible governance.
The ECOWAS Court’s role now is to ensure that justice prevails and that principles of fair hearing and due process are upheld. Dr. Sai’s lucid presentation equips the Court with a thorough understanding of the legal architecture behind the suspension. It is a sobering reminder that upholding the rule of law sometimes requires difficult choices—but when those choices are the product of legitimate, accountable deliberation, they strengthen rather than weaken the foundations of democratic society.
We trust that the Court, in its deliberation, will affirm not only the integrity of this process but also the enduring commitment of our institutions to the rule of law.
