Constitutional lawyer Raymond Bidema has dismissed allegations that President John Mahama violated due process in the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, asserting that the move adhered strictly to constitutional provisions.
Bidema’s remarks, made during an interview on Starr Today, countered claims by Parliament’s Minority that Mahama sidestepped Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution, which mandates fairness and reasonableness in executive decisions. The lawyer argued that Article 146(6) explicitly grants the president authority to suspend a chief justice after consulting the Council of State and determining a prima facie case.
“The Constitution is unambiguous: once a petition is presented, the president’s role is to assess its merit and act accordingly. Suspension is a discretionary power vested in the presidency under this framework,” Bidema stated. His defense comes amid escalating political tensions, with the New Patriotic Party (NPP) accusing Mahama of orchestrating a judicial purge.
NPP National Organizer Henry Nana Boakye announced plans for mass protests, labeling the suspension a “politically motivated assault on democracy” tied to Mahama’s pre-2024 election pledges. In a social media post, Boakye alleged the president was fulfilling a vow to reshape the judiciary, warning, “We must agitate against this evil agenda.”
Legal analysts remain divided. While some echo Bidema’s stance on procedural compliance, others question the petition’s timing and substance. The controversy underscores Ghana’s fragile judiciary-executive balance, with past suspensions like that of Justice Georgina Wood in 2007 similarly sparking partisan clashes.
As street protests loom, the Chief Justice’s fate hinges on whether Mahama’s critics can substantiate claims of overreach or if Bidema’s constitutional interpretation prevails. The outcome may set a precedent for judicial independence in Ghana’s increasingly polarized climate.
