The Minority Caucus in Parliament has condemned the suspension of the Chief Justice, describing it as a judicial coup and a blatant attempt by the government to undermine the independence of the Judiciary.
In a press statement, the caucus is demanding the immediate reinstatement of the Chief Justice pending the Supreme Court’s determination of the Vincent Ekow Assafuah vs. Attorney General case. They are also calling for a halt to all removal proceedings until the Apex Court has conclusively ruled on the constitutionality of the process.
.”We demand the immediate reinstatement of the Chief Justice pending the Supreme Court’s ruling on the legal challenges and a halt to all removal proceedings until a final judicial determination is made regarding the constitutionality of the process.” They stated.
They labelled the move as “a reckless abuse of executive powers, a political vendetta, and alleged it as a calculated attempt to pack the courts with “NDC-sympathetic justices,”.
They also described the Chief Justice’s suspension “as a textbook case of executive interference and a dangerous precedent,” which they likened to the removal of Chief Justice Sir Arku Korsah by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah in 1963.
“President Mahama’s actions confirm what many have long suspected—that this is not about accountability but about raw political control. His public declaration in Akosombo to balance the judiciary by appointing NDC-aligned judges exposes the ulterior motive behind this sudden push to remove the Chief Justice” They stated.
The caucus issued a stern warning that any further attempts to remove the Chief Justice through ‘unlawful’ means will be met with strong legal and public resistance.
In the pending suit before the Supreme Court, counsel for Vincent Ekow Assafuah, the former Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, argues that under the proper interpretation of Articles 146(1), (2), (4), (6), and (7), along with Articles 23, 57(3), and 296 of the 1992 Constitution, the President is required to notify the Chief Justice of any petition for her removal and obtain her response before consulting the Council of State.
The President’s failure to secure the Chief Justice’s comments before referring the petitions to the Council of State, the suit argues, renders the entire process null and void.