Ghanaians deserve to know why removal petitions fail or succeed — Prof HK Prempeh

Chairman of the Constitutional Review Committee, Professor Henry Kwasi Prempeh, has called for greater transparency in how removal petitions against heads of independent institutions are handled under Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.

He expressed dissatisfaction with the current application of Article 146, which outlines the procedure for the removal of such public officers, describing it as lacking openness.

In a social media post on Tuesday, April 23, the Executive Director of the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana) argued that Ghanaians deserve to know why a removal petition succeeds or fails.

“Findings and outcome of the proceedings, including the grounds and supporting evidence behind the removal petition, must be made public after the fact — that is, whether or not the petition succeeds,” he wrote.

According to Professor Prempeh, this level of openness would allow the public to judge for themselves whether justice was served in each case.

He made the comment in reaction to President Mahama’s suspension of the Chief Justice, Her Ladyship Gertrude Esaaba Torkonoo, on Tuesday, pending the outcome of a five-member committee inquiry into three petitions seeking her removal from office.

The constitutional expert also proposed reforms to the composition of the inquiry committee, especially in cases involving a Chief Justice.

He said no Supreme Court judge should be a member of such a committee, to avoid conflict of interest.

“Where the removal petition pertains to a Chief Justice, no sitting judge should be included in the five-person removal committee that is constituted to hear the petition. The three other non-lawyer members of the removal committee could also be selected through a more politically inclusive, diverse or neutral process,” he suggested.

He further objected to the President’s involvement in the process, arguing that the President should only implement the final outcome and not be involved in the selection of committee members.

“Better to keep a President out of the removal process, except to implement, after the fact, the final outcome of the process as determined by an independent removal committee,” he stated.