Majority Leader defends presidential discretion in suspension of Chief Justice

Majority Leader and Leader of Government Business, Mahama Ayariga, has firmly defended the constitutional framework governing the suspension of a Chief Justice, rejecting claims that the process gives the President excessive powers.

In a detailed statement, Mr. Ayariga clarified that Article 146(10)(a) of the 1992 Constitution does not allow the President to act unilaterally in such matters. Rather, he stressed, the President is constitutionally bound to act "in accordance with the advice of the Council of State."

“The duty to be ‘fair and candid’ under Article 296(a) is embedded in the structure of Article 146(10)(a),” Ayariga noted. “The President cannot unilaterally suspend the Chief Justice.

He must do so only with the advice of the Council of State, which serves as a safeguard against bias, arbitrariness, or abuse.”

His remarks follow heightened public concern and debate within the legal community, triggered by reports of a petition calling for the removal of the current Chief Justice. Critics, including members of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) and other legal commentators, have questioned the transparency and fairness of the process.

Mr. Ayariga challenged those criticisms, particularly questioning the basis of the concerns being raised.

“Unless the GBA and all the commentators I have heard are saying they have issues with the advice of the Council of State, I am baffled at the disingenuous efforts to fault the process so far,” he stated.

He further emphasized that the President has no control over how the Council of State forms its advice, pointing to Article 92(11), which gives the Council the authority to determine its own procedures.

Drawing a parallel with the Chief Justice’s powers under Article 159, Ayariga explained that the Constitution places similar checks on administrative authority. Just as the Chief Justice must act with the advice of the Judicial Council and the President’s approval, the President is also restricted from acting alone in disciplinary matters involving the Chief Justice.

He also highlighted the framers’ deliberate decision not to define certain key terms in Article 294, such as “stated misbehaviour,” “incompetence,” and “inability to perform the functions of his office,” instead leaving their interpretation to the independent committee established under Article 146.

“In all of Article 294, the framers didn’t think it necessary to define those terms,” he said. “The committee must decide what those mean on a case-by-case basis.”

Ayariga’s statement appears aimed at reinforcing public trust in the constitutional safeguards in place, even amid political tension and institutional scrutiny.