CJ removal: Prima facie determination does not always require response-Kpebu
By DL News
Published
1 min read
He stressed that this preliminary assessment, known as a prima facie determination, does not always require feedback or a response from the Chief Justice or any judge of the superior courts.
Legal practitioner Martin Kpebu says President John Mahama acted within the law in the ongoing process related to petitions seeking the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.
Speaking on JoyNews, Mr. Kpebu clarified that under Article 146(3) of the 1992 Constitution, the President — after consulting the Council of State — has the authority to determine whether a petition has enough merit to warrant further investigation through the establishment of a tribunal.
He stressed that this preliminary assessment, known as a prima facie determination, does not always require feedback or a response from the Chief Justice or any judge of the superior courts.
Kpebu highlighted that not every petition automatically leads to the formation of a five-member tribunal. Instead, the President must first assess if the petition meets basic requirements. For example, he said petitions that are unsigned, lack identification of the petitioner, or are filled with incoherent or abusive language can be dismissed outright — without involving the Chief Justice.
He further emphasized that while the President may reject baseless petitions on procedural grounds, he cannot proceed to form a tribunal on a valid petition without first giving the Chief Justice an opportunity to respond.
Kpebu’s comments were in response to former Deputy Attorney General Alfred Tuah-Yeboah, who argued that the Chief Justice must be given a chance to respond before any decision is made about a potential case against her.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Torkornoo has formally requested access to the petitions submitted to the President, stating her intention to respond to the allegations.
