Vice President of IMANI Africa, Kofi Bentil, says former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo’s legal challenge about her removal as justice of the Supreme Court is both legitimate and necessary to clarify the law.
Speaking on Joy FM’s Super Morning Show on Wednesday (September 18), Mr Bentil explained that the law treats justices of the Supreme Court and the chief justice differently when it comes to appointments and removals.
He was reacting to a suit filed by the former Chief Justice challenging her removal by President John Mahama from both the office of Chief Justice and as a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Mrs Torkornoo’s challenge specifically targets the legal foundation of the removal process, asserting that the president cannot constitutionally use the procedure established for removing a chief justice under Article 146(6) to simultaneously remove her from her position as a justice of the Supreme Court.
She maintains these are separate offices requiring distinct removal procedures under the constitution.
Commenting on the development, Mr Bentil stated, “There are justices in the Supreme Court; in our law, they are appointed in a particular way. Then there is a chief justice who is one of the justices, but he or she is appointed differently and goes through vetting differently.
“In our law, the process of removing justices of the Supreme Court is different from the process of removing the chief justice,” he explained.
He said that since these differences exist, the matter should be fully tested in court. According to him, until there is a clear judicial pronouncement, no one can say the issue has been settled.
“As long as there is room, and the processes have not been exhausted for a matter that is in contention, we should use that option. What the former CJ is doing is useful for all of us,” he said.
Mr Bentil further said that the case is not just about Mrs Torkonoo but about clarifying the law for the future.
“She does have the right to bring that matter. Because until there is a judicial pronouncement on the matter, it is not final. There is a persuasive argument in law that what she is saying may be true. All of us should hold our horses and not sound as if we know how this is going to go,” he urged.
He added that the chief justice performs unique administrative duties in addition to being a judge, which makes her role distinct from other justices.
For this reason, he believes it is worth asking whether removal as chief justice should automatically end one’s position as a Supreme Court justice.
“She qualified to become a justice of the Supreme Court and passed all the requirements. When you are removed as chief justice, it does not mean that the qualification that brought you to being a justice is suddenly gone,” he said.
Mr Bentil insisted that the matter should not be reduced to public opinion but properly be left to the courts.
“These are our views. It is properly before the Supreme Court. Let them take a look at it and make a decision on this matter. Then we will all be guided going forward,” he said.
Source: Clara Seshie
ALSO READ:
