The Supreme Court has overruled an objection seeking the recusal of the Acting Chief Justice, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, from the panel hearing an injunction against the suspension of the Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo.
In a unanimous decision , a five -member panel of the court held that the objection had no merit.
The objection was raised by a former A-G, Godfred Yeboah Dame, lawyer for the applicant, who argued that Justice Baffoe -Bonnie had a personal interest in the application for injunction as it could affect his status as Acting Chief Justice.
However, the court held that the position of Acting Chief Justice was created under Article 144 (6) of the Constitution and whoever occupied it could not be said to have a personal interest.
“The objection is unmeritorious and consequently overruled,” the court held.
A former Attorney-General (A-G) and Minister for Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame had objected to the acting Chief Justice, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, presiding over the case seeking to halt the suspension of the Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo.
Mr Dame who is lawyer for Vincent Assafuah, the legislator challenging the suspension of the Chief Justice, argued in court today that Justice Baffoe -Bonnie had an interest in the case and therefore should recuse himself from the five -member panel.
According to counsel, the outcome of the case had the potential to affect the status of the suspended Chief Justice and the Acting Chief Justice and therefore it was in the interest of justice for Justice Baffoe -Bonnie not to be part of the panel.
Mr Dame added that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie had assumed all the powers of the Chief Justice and therefore ought not to be on panel.
“It important that justice must not be seen to be done but must be manifestly seen to be done,” he added
He cited three cases involving the status of the Chief Justice, and stated that in all those cases the Chief Justice, although had the power to empanel did not include himself to the panel.
Response
In his response, the Deputy A-G, Dr Justice Srem-Sai described the objection as “misconceived” and urged the court to overrule it.
It was his submission that the position of Acting Chief Justice came with duties and not any personal interest.
Again, he argued that it was the position of the law that in any constitutional matter as is currently the case, neither the parties or the judges were deemed to have any personal interest.
The Deputy A-G further argued the objection was also misconceived because the case involved the substantive Chief Justice and not the Acting Chief Justice.
“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 Deputy A-G argued.
As at the time of filing this report, the five -member panel, presided over Justice Baffoe -Bonnie, has gone into chambers to rule on the objection.
Source Graphiconline
