The head of practice at Cyrus Law, Mr. James Kofi Afedo Esq. has descended heavily on the opposition New Patriotic Party saying their conduct so far, have they not shown clearly that the suspended CJ was partisan and biased in their favour.
According to the media personality, the NPP only cares about their partisan interest and “Not an independent judiciary” adding that “They [NPP] want a judiciary that will protect them from accountability for their past stewardship, and the only one they trust to do that is the suspended CJ.”
The PR expert was reacting to the former Deputy Attorney General, Diana Asonaba Dapaah’s comment that the petitions against CJ “an insult to judicial martyrs” at the back of NPP’s planned protest on May 5, 2025, against the suspension of the Chief Justice.
If readers will recall, just about a day after President Mahama announced that he had forwarded to the Council of States, some petitions he received for the removal of the now-suspended Cheif Justice, NPP MP for Old Tafo, Ekow Vincent Assafuah and his lawyer, Godfred Yeboah Dame filed a writ at the Supreme Court asking the court to injunct the President from continuing the process.
Read Mr. Afedo’s full post on Facebookook:
IN THE MATTER OF THE REMOVAL OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE: WHERE IS THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OR PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY?
Let me start this by commenting briefly on the views of the former deputy Attorney-General Dinah Asonaba Dapaah on the issue. Dinah is a brilliant legal mind. I fell in love with her intellectual brilliance in my days of prepping for Makola entrance exams under the banner of Prepex at GIMPA.
Unfortunately, it seems the toxic party politics has taken the better part of her. It seems everyone on that side is scared that if you don’t follow the bandwagon of the micro-minority, your future in the party is at risk.
She got it absolutely wrong on this CJ issue. Like all her colleagues, their partisan interest is the only thing they care about. Not an independent judiciary. They want a judiciary that will protect them from accountability for their past stewardship, and the only one they trust to do that is the suspended CJ.
By their conduct so far, have they not shown clearly that the suspended CJ was partisan and biased in their favour.
By the way, research by Global Info Analytics shows that the majority of Ghanaians want her out anyway, so if there are grounds for it, they want her to continue in office because she is unaccountable?. Or above the Constitution? Or what?
Now if in the collective wisdom of the 31-member Council of State, the suspended CJ has questions to answer and should be suspended, what did President John Dramani Mahama do wrong by simply following the provisions of the Constitution to the letter?
Here are the true facts: when former President Akufo-Addo received Prof. Kweku Asare’s petition dated 17 December 2024 for the removal of the suspended CJ, he forwarded the said petition to the Council of State the very next day (18 December 2024). That President only forwarded Prof. Asare’ petition to the CJ for her response 2 days after sending it to the Council of State (20 December 2024). Note his reason for doing so in the attached letter.
Note also that the submission of Prof. Asare’s petition and the petition itself was widely published on social media. But this same CJ did not write to that President demanding a copy of the petition, leaking her letter to the public, and copying several groups even before the then President got the opportunity of reading her totally needless letter.
When the President received the now-suspended CJ’s response 3 days later (23 December 2024), he wrote to the Council of State on 24 December 2024 forwarding the CJ’s response to the Council for its consideration.
From the chronology of events put together by that President himself, at no point did he (Akufo-Addo) first determine the existence or nonexistence of a ‘prima facie’ case before consulting the Council of State.
Today, the same group of people are now telling Ghanaians that the current President ought to first determine the existence or nonexistence of a ‘prima facie’ case by himself, before beginning the consultative process with the Council of State.
Today, the same people now say the purported ‘failure’ of this President to first determine the existence or nonexistence of a ‘prima facie’ case is a procedural impropriety that the Supreme Court ought to declare as null and void.
On the vexed matter of the suspension of the now suspended CJ, Article 146(10) gives the President the discretion to suspend the CJ on the advice of the Council of State.
It is clear that the 31-member Council of State advised this President to suspend the CJ pending the investigations into the allegations of stated misbehavior and incompetence against her.
The Constitution itself provides the legal framework for the exercise of such discretionary power. It ought to be exercised fairly and justly, not whimsically, arbitrarily, or capriciously.
And the Supreme Court itself has stated time without number that once discretionary power is exercised lawfully by the administrative or adjudicative authority, it cannot be questioned.
The question is, what was unfair, or unjust, or whimsical, or capricious or arbitrary about this President’s exercise of his discretion to accept the advice of the 31-wise men and women of the Council of State? Our friends cannot in all honesty point to any.
As the well-known American Jurist Oliver Wendel Homes once said, “the life of the law is not logic, it is experience,” and I add precedent, and common sense.
No lawyer who knows his onions and is not blinded by self-interest, entitlement mentality, bigotry, and partisan politics can fault what President John Dramani Mahama has done so far. He followed not only the law ti the letter, but also past experience, precedent, and common sense.
