Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, Hon. Vincent Ekow Assafuah, has raised concerns over what he describes as “questionable developments” at the Supreme Court regarding his constitutional challenge to the removal process of former Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo.
In a statement issued on Saturday, June 20, 2026, the lawmaker suggested that the handling of the case by the Supreme Court creates the impression that the outcome may already be predetermined.
The suit, filed on March 27, 2025, sought to challenge the constitutionality of the process initiated by President John Dramani Mahama’s administration for the removal of the Chief Justice.
According to Assafuah, his action questioned whether the President could validly commence consultations with the Council of State on petitions seeking the removal of a Chief Justice without first notifying the Chief Justice and obtaining her response.
The MP explained that due to what he described as the government’s urgency to remove Justice Torkornoo, he filed an interlocutory injunction application to halt the process pending the determination of the substantive case.
However, before the injunction application could be determined, the President announced on April 22, 2025, that a prima facie case had been established against the Chief Justice, leading to her suspension from office.
Assafuah said he subsequently filed another injunction application to stop the work of the committee established to investigate the petitions against the Chief Justice.
The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the application on May 6, 2025.
According to him, the dismissal paved the way for what he repeatedly described as a “diabolical plan” to remove the Chief Justice and allegedly capture the judiciary for political purposes.
“Every right-thinking person in the country knows that the petitions were only a legal ploy to carry out the Government’s political plan of seizing control of the Judiciary,” he stated.
He further claimed that the judiciary failed to protect its own independence and instead became complicit in the process.
The former Chief Justice was eventually removed from office on September 1, 2025, effectively completing the process that Assafuah had originally challenged in court.
The Old Tafo MP argued that the substantive case had therefore become moot because the removal process had already been concluded, making it impossible for the court to provide any practical remedy.
Based on this, he filed an application seeking leave to discontinue the suit.
However, Assafuah expressed shock that the Supreme Court scheduled the hearing of his discontinuance application for July 2, 2026 — the same date the apex court is expected to deliver judgment in the substantive case.
He questioned why an application seeking to terminate proceedings would not be heard and determined before judgment is delivered.
“If a party has formally applied to discontinue an action because subsequent events have clearly rendered the matter moot, why should the application for discontinuance be fixed for hearing on the very day judgment is to be delivered?” he asked.
The Ranking Member on Parliament’s Select Committee on Youth, Sports and Culture raised several concerns about the court’s approach, questioning whether the Supreme Court had already decided to dismiss his application and proceed with judgment regardless.
He also questioned why the court appeared to be rushing to deliver judgment now when, according to him, it did not demonstrate the same urgency in hearing his injunction applications earlier in the process.
Assafuah further suggested that the court’s determination to proceed with judgment in what he described as a moot case could be aimed at retrospectively validating the removal process.
He referenced growing public perceptions that politics may be influencing the handling of constitutional matters involving the judiciary.
“In rushing to pass judgment on a moot case, is the Supreme Court trying to please the Executive, whom some perceive to be the new masters of the Judiciary?” he queried.
Despite his criticism, the MP maintained that he still has respect for the judiciary and the authority of the Supreme Court.
He stressed, however, that respect for state institutions should not prevent citizens from raising legitimate concerns when judicial processes create the appearance of political interference.
According to him, the case goes beyond the interest of any individual and touches on broader constitutional principles, judicial independence, due process, and public confidence in Ghana’s democratic institutions.
“The Ghanaian people deserve confidence that constitutional disputes are determined strictly on legal merit, free from political influence, and in a manner that strengthens public trust in our democratic institutions,” he stated.
By 1960news.com
