CJ removal petitions: Calling for public hearing of case short-sighted, selfish - Lawyer Agbemava

Elikplim Agbemava, a seasoned legal practitioner and influential figure within the National Democratic Congress (NDC), has voiced reservations about growing demands for public hearings in the ongoing inquiry into petitions seeking the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Torkonoo.

The petitions, submitted to President Mahama, have triggered a constitutionally mandated process resulting in the formation of a committee to investigate the allegations. However, the question of whether the proceedings should be opened to the public has stirred significant debate, with transparency advocates calling for broader access.

Agbemava, however, cautioned against rushing into such a decision, warning that it could undermine the integrity of the process.

"In fact, the call for a public hearing on the petitions against the Chief Justice is short-sighted and selfish," he stated in a Facebook post seen by this portal. He further raised concerns about the possible risks to those who come forward during the hearings, asking, "What are the implications for the rights of whistleblowers and other witnesses who testify in the matter? Will similar cases emerge if those who expose perceived acts of corruption in the public interest are publicly exposed and victimized in such politically charged cases?"

He also drew attention to constitutional limitations placed on the committee, pointing out that transparency demands cannot override established legal provisions.

"The committee itself lacks the power to publicize its hearings. The constitution mandatorily require the committee to hold the hearings in camera. No party has any privilege to even think of waiving it," he asserted.

Agbemava further proposed a more appropriate course of action for proponents of public hearings, one that respects legal processes: "Ideally, the Committee ought to be petitioned first to make its proceedings public, and if the petition is refused, before they subsequently consider taking the matter to the Supreme Court, assuming it is the appropriate forum."

His remarks inject a measured legal perspective into the ongoing national conversation, underscoring the need to respect constitutional procedures while considering the broader implications of public access in sensitive judicial matters.

Meanwhile, the committee continues its work, as debate over transparency and due process remains active.