The Majority Leader, Mahama Ayariga, has firmly defended the President’s constitutional authority to suspend a Chief Justice under Article 146(10)(a), asserting that the process is neither arbitrary nor unchecked.
In a statement released on April 30, 2025, he clarified that the President’s decision is constitutionally anchored in the advice of the Council of State, addressing concerns about potential bias or caprice.
“There is no unchecked discretion here because 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’,” he emphasized.
Responding to public apprehension, particularly from legal commentators and the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), Mr. Ayariga argued that the Constitution includes safeguards to prevent any abuse of executive power.
He noted that Article 296(a), which demands fairness and candour, is inherently fulfilled by the involvement of the Council of State.
“The concerns over a particular President’s potential arbitrariness, caprice, bias, resentment, prejudice, or personal dislike are equally expected to be contained by the mechanism of ensuring that he must obtain the advice of the Council of State,” he stated.
Mr. Ayariga also questioned the inconsistency of those challenging the President’s discretion, pointing out that similar powers vested in the Chief Justice have not received the same level of scrutiny.
Referring to Article 159, he highlighted that the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the President and the advice of the Judicial Council, enact regulations for the Judicial Service—yet the GBA has never demanded a constitutional instrument to clarify how such discretion should be exercised.
“That is because they appreciate that it is a discretion that is well checked,” Mr. Ayariga asserted.
In conclusion, the Majority Leader warned against attempts to distort the constitutionally defined process, emphasizing that even terms like “stated misbehaviour” or “incompetence” are to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis by the Article 146 Committee.
“I have not yet come across their meanings,” he remarked, “because the Constitution says the Committee should determine, on a case-by-case basis, what those mean.”
READ ALSO: