By Sankofaonline Legal Analyst
September 1, 2025
ACCRA — The recent petition to remove Ghana’s sitting Chief Justice has ignited public discourse and legal curiosity across the nation. While the headlines capture the drama, the constitutional mechanics behind such a move remain complex and often misunderstood. This explainer demystifies Article 146 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, the legal backbone of judicial accountability.
What Is Article 146?
Article 146 outlines the procedure for removing a Justice of the Superior Courts, including the Chief Justice, for stated misbehavior or incompetence. It is designed to protect judicial independence while ensuring accountability through a rigorous, multi-tiered process.
Step-by-Step Breakdown of the Removal Process
Stage Description
- Petition Submission A citizen or group submits a formal complaint to the President or Speaker of Parliament.
- Preliminary Review The President refers the petition to the Council of State, which advises on its merit.
- Committee Formation If deemed substantial, a committee is appointed to investigate the allegations.
- Investigation & Hearings The committee conducts hearings, gathers evidence, and allows both sides to present their case.
- Report & Recommendations The committee submits its findings to the President, including whether removal is justified.
- Presidential Decision The President reviews the report and makes a final determination, which may include removal.
Why Confidentiality Matters
The Constitution mandates that such proceedings be held “in camera”, privately,to protect the dignity of the judiciary and the reputations of those involved. This ensures that unverified claims do not unduly influence public opinion or judicial outcomes.
Legal Precedents & Public Scrutiny
While rare, petitions under Article 146 have historically served as a litmus test for Ghana’s commitment to rule of law. The current case, involving allegations dating back to 1992, is notable for its scale, public engagement, and the volume of evidence reviewed,over 10,000 public submissions.
What’s at Stake?
This moment is more than a personnel matter—it’s a constitutional crossroads. The President’s decision will shape public trust in the judiciary, set precedent for future accountability, and reaffirm the delicate balance between independence and oversight.
Final Thought
In a democracy, the judiciary must be both impartial and answerable. Article 146 is not a weapon—it is a safeguard. As Ghana awaits the President’s decision, the nation watches not just for a verdict, but for a reaffirmation of constitutional integrity.
