The Supreme Court rejected a motion to remove Acting Chief Justice Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie from the panel considering an order against Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo’s suspension.
A five-member panel of the court ruled unanimously that the objection was without merit.
The applicant’s attorney, Godfred Yeboah Dame, a former A-G, objected, claiming that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie had a personal stake in the injunction motion since it would impact his position as Acting Chief Justice.
The court ruled, however, that the Acting Chief Justice post was established under Article 144(6) of the Constitution and that the person holding it could not be considered to have a personal interest.
The court ruled, “The objection is unmeritorious and therefore overruled.”
In an attempt to stop the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, former Attorney-General (A-G) and Minister for Justice Godfred Yeboah Dame had opposed the case being presided over by acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie.
In court today, Mr. Dame, the attorney representing Vincent Assafuah, the lawmaker contesting the Chief Justice’s suspension, contended that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie should step aside from the five-member panel because he had a stake in the outcome.
Counsel argued that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s exclusion from the panel was in the interest of justice because the case’s decision could have an impact on the standing of the Acting Chief Justice and the suspended Chief Justice.
Mr. Dame went on to say that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie should not be on the panel since she had taken over all of the Chief Justice’s responsibilities.
“It is important that justice must not be seen to be done but must be manifestly seen to be done,” he continued.
He mentioned three cases that dealt with the Chief Justice’s status and said that in each of them, the Chief Justice did not include himself on the panel even though he had the authority to do so.
The Deputy A-G, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, responded by calling the objection “misconceived” and requesting that the court overturn it.
He argued that the role of Acting Chief Justice had responsibilities rather than personal interests.
Once more, he maintained that the law held that neither the parties nor the judges were considered to have any personal interests in any constitutional subject, as is the situation at the moment.
Additionally, the Deputy A-G contended that the argument was misguided because the actual Chief Justice, not the Acting Chief Justice, was involved in the matter.
The Deputy A-G argued that, “It is not the Acting Chief Justice who is the subject matter of removal proceedings, it is the substantive Chief Justice who is still Chief Justice. The objection has no basis in law.”
The five-member panel, which is chaired by Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, has yet to rule on the objection as of the time this article was filed.
Source: newsthemegh.com