It's prejudicial for GBA to describe CJ’s suspension as unconstitutional — Prof Kwaku Azar

Ghanaian legal scholar Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, known affectionately as Kwaku Azar, has challenged the Ghana Bar Association’s (GBA) assertion that President John Dramani Mahama’s suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Esaaba Torkornoo is unconstitutional.

The GBA, at its mid-year conference held on April 26, issued a five-point resolution addressing major national and professional concerns.

These include the Chief Justice’s suspension, the protracted Bawku conflict, and the unresolved parliamentary election in Ablekuma North.

In its resolution, the association contended that President Mahama, who is not a judicial officer, lacked the constitutional authority to exercise such discretion without a clearly established regulatory framework, as stipulated in Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution.

But reacting to the claims in a social media post on Tuesday, April 29, the legal scholar argued that the absence of a regulation does not invalidate a discretionary act unless the act itself is arbitrary, biased, or violates due process, as outlined in Articles 296(a) and (b).

Prof Kwaku Azar further described the Bar’s position as prejudicial, noting that the GBA has itself practised what it preaches against.

“The Chief Justice’s suspension remains constitutional. The GBA’s call for revocation lacks legal merit and risks politicizing the judiciary itself.

“The GBA, in calling for an end to prejudicial commentary, has issued one of the most prejudicial declarations yet,” he argued.

He stressed that if the Bar wants to defend due process, it must first practise it, stating, “It cannot condemn prejudgment with one hand and dispense it with the other.”