14 hours Ago By Ghana News
(From left) Prof Stephen Kwaku Asare (Kwaku Azar) and GBA president Efua Ghartey Renowned US-based Ghanaian lawyer and scholar, Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, has called out the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) following the release of its official resolution demanding that President John Dramani Mahama revokes the suspension of Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo. In a statement shared on social media on April 29, 2025, Kwaku Asare refuted the assertion of the GBA that President John Dramani Mahama’s suspension of the Chief Justice was unconstitutional. He asserted that the association’s claims that President Mahama erred in his decision to suspend Justice Torkornoo were unfounded because there is no laid down procedure for the president to carry out the powers given for the suspension.
He said that the suspension of Justice Torkornoo by President Mahama is constitutional, adding that the GBA’s statement is prejudicial. “The GBA claims that the Chief Justice’s suspension is unconstitutional because no published regulation governs the President’s discretion under Article 296(c). “The Chief Justice’s suspension remains constitutional.
The GBA’s call for revocation lacks legal merit and risks politicising the judiciary itself,” he wrote. He went on to list reasons the GBA’s call for revocation of the suspension is flawed, as follows: 1. Supreme Court already decided this: In Ransford France vs Electoral Commission (2012), the Supreme Court unanimously held that not every discretionary act requires prior published regulations.
2. Literal reading rejected: Justice Date-Bah warned that a literal interpretation of Article 296(c) would cause a “nuclear melt-down” of government—crippling normal administration. 3.
Targeted scope of Article 296(c): The Court ruled that Article 296(c) applies only to quasi-judicial situations, not to administrative acts like suspending an official pending investigation. By quasi-judicial, the Court clarified that it involves adjudication. 4.
Living constitution approach: Justice Atuguba emphasised that the constitution must be interpreted dynamically to promote governance, not obstruct it with technicalities. 5. Absence of regulations is not equal automatic unconstitutionality: A missing regulation does not invalidate a discretionary act unless the act itself is arbitrary, biased, or violates due process (Articles 296(a) and (b)).
6. GBA offers no evidence of bias or unfairness: The GBA merely points to the absence of regulations, without proving that the suspension was unfair, arbitrary, or prejudiced. 7.
Ignoring precedent is dangerous: The GBA’s position ignores the Ransford France precedent and risks spreading legal confusion rather than defending the rule of law. 8. Legal certainty matters: If we follow the GBA’s logic, thousands of lawful discretionary acts since 1969 would collapse.
That is not rule of law — it is chaos. 9. GOGO supports scrutiny — but it must be grounded in law: Criticism of executive action must be rooted in binding precedent, not political expediency or selective readings of the Constitution.
BAI/AE Meanwhile, watch as frustrated Ghanaians speak out on poor network challenges Meanwhile, watch GhanaWeb’s tour of Odweanoma Paragliding Field below:.
