Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has asserted that President John Dramani Mahama played an active and constitutionally significant role in the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, countering claims that he acted merely as a passive implementer of committee recommendations.
Speaking on Channel One TV’s “The Point of View” on Monday, September 1, Kpebu clarified that the President’s involvement in the dismissal of a sitting Chief Justice goes beyond routine procedural formalities, giving him distinct decision-making authority not present in other Supreme Court removal cases.
“When it comes to the removal of the Chief Justice, the President is not a conveyor belt,” Kpebu explained. “He sits in judgment in the prima facie case and also carries out the suspension. He is only a conveyor belt if the committee submits its report regarding another Justice of the Supreme Court who is not the Chief Justice.”
His comments come amid debate following President Mahama’s decision to remove Justice Torkornoo on the advice of a five-member committee established under Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution. The committee had concluded that the Chief Justice engaged in stated misbehaviour, including alleged misuse of public funds and abuse of office.
Kpebu’s analysis directly challenges assertions from government officials, including Communications Minister Felix Kwakye Ofosu, who maintained that the President had no discretion and simply implemented the committee’s recommendations.
According to Kpebu, the constitutional process for a Chief Justice’s removal grants the President an expanded role, encompassing initial assessment of the petition and the authority to make a prima facie determination before any investigative committee is formed.
“This distinction is critical,” Kpebu noted, “because it underscores that the President’s involvement is not merely ceremonial but central to the legal and constitutional framework governing the judiciary.”
The remarks have reignited discussions on judicial independence, presidential discretion, and constitutional safeguards in high-profile removals, underscoring the legal complexities surrounding Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.
