Supreme Court dismisses application to injunct suspension of Chief Justice
The decision, reached by a five-member panel in a narrow 3-2 majority, was led by Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie. The application had been filed by legislator Vincent Ekow Assafuah
The Supreme Court has rejected an application for an injunction aimed at stopping President John Dramani Mahama’s suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo.
The decision, reached by a five-member panel in a narrow 3-2 majority, was led by Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie. The application had been filed by legislator Vincent Ekow Assafuah.
Justices Baffoe-Bonnie, Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, and Tanko Amadu formed the majority that voted to dismiss the case, while Justices Professor Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu and Ernest Gaewu expressed dissenting views.
The court noted that detailed reasons for its ruling would be made public on May 21.
Objection overruled
Early in the proceeding, the apex court unanimously rejected a request to disqualify Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie from a case involving an injunction against the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo.
The objection, filed by former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame on behalf of applicant Vincent Assafuah, argued that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie had a conflict of interest, as the outcome of the case could affect his role as acting chief justice. Dame contended that Baffoe-Bonnie’s position could be seen as a stake in the case and that his presence on the five-member panel compromised the impartiality required in judicial proceedings.
However, the court disagreed, ruling that the acting chief justice holds the position by constitutional provision—specifically Article 144(6) of the 1992 Constitution—and that the temporary nature of the role does not amount to a personal interest in the matter at hand.
Delivering the ruling, the court stated, “The objection lacks merit and is therefore overruled.”
During proceedings, Dame emphasized the importance of perceived impartiality in judicial conduct, referencing past cases where chief justices refrained from sitting on panels related to their own status or authority. He argued that the principles of natural justice demanded that Baffoe-Bonnie step aside to preserve the integrity of the process.
In response, Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai dismissed the objection as flawed, stating that the acting chief justice simply performs a constitutional duty and has no personal interest in the case. He further clarified that the subject of the proceedings is the substantive Chief Justice, not the Acting one, and as such, the claim of conflict of interest does not stand.
“The Acting Chief Justice is not under investigation or threat. The legal issue pertains solely to the suspended Chief Justice. The objection is without legal foundation,” he argued.
The court later returned from chambers to announce its ruling, allowing Justice Baffoe-Bonnie to remain on the panel and proceed with the case.
