The Majority Leader and Leader of Government Business, Mahama Ayariga, has defended the exercise of discretionary power under Article 146(10) of the 1992 Constitution, explaining that it permits the President to suspend the Chief Justice.

A statement issued by the Majority Leader, and copied to the Ghana News Agency on Wednesday, stated:

“The discretion of the President to suspend the Chief Justice is checked by the fact that he must act ‘in accordance with the advice of the Council of State.’”

The statement further explained that the constitutional duty to be “fair and candid,” as required under Article 296(a), is embedded in Article 146(10)(a) by the requirement that the President can only act based on the advice of the Council of State.

It emphasized that the Council of State’s advisory role was crucial in ensuring that the President’s exercise of discretion was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

“Unless the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) and all the commentators I have heard are saying they have issues with the advice of the Council of State, I am baffled by the disingenuous efforts to fault the process so far,” the statement read.

The statement also referenced Article 159 of the 1992 Constitution, which empowers the Chief Justice to make regulations for the efficient performance of the Judicial Service and Judicial Council, subject to the advice of the Judicial Council and the approval of the President.

“Don’t forget Article 92(11), which states in part that ‘the Council of State may regulate its own procedure.’
The President cannot regulate the content of their advisory functions,” it added.

President John Dramani Mahama suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo following the establishment of a prima facie case in response to three separate petitions seeking her removal from office.

The suspension, announced on Tuesday, April 22, 2025, marks a significant moment in Ghana’s judicial history, as the country’s top judge now faces a formal inquiry into her conduct.

Although the specific allegations in the petitions have not been publicly disclosed, the situation has stirred widespread debate within legal and political circles, raising questions about judicial accountability and the integrity of the judiciary's leadership.

In accordance with constitutional procedures, Chief Justice Torkornoo was furnished with copies of the petitions and was given 10 days to respond.

She submitted her written response on Monday, April 7, 2025.

Would you like a summary version or any part of this formatted for publication or legal briefing?