The Deputy Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Justice Srem Sai has fired shots at the Ghana Bar Association after they described President Mahama’s suspension of the Chief Justice as unconstitutional.
According to Justice Srem Sai, the GBA does not need to go to a law School to understand what the Constitution says.
He noted that a series of court decisions confirm that the process of the prima facie case against the Chief Justice including the petition, the conversation, and everything about it should be private.
The Deputy Attorney General, Justice Srem-Sai Speaking on TV3 stated, “If a group of lawyers meet at an event and decide that the best call they can make is that the president unmakes that which the constitution says should be private, be made public, what does that tell you? It tells you that it is a group who are trying to subvert the constitution.
“Do they need to go to law school to understand that when the constitution says something should be private, and a series of court decisions confirm that the process, including the petition, the conversation, and everything about it should be private?” he questioned.
His comment comes after the GBA in a statement dated April 26, stated, “The Ghana Bar Association calls for the immediate revocation of the suspension of the Chief Justice as it considers the suspension to be unconstitutional”.
They emphasised the suspension was carried out without any published Constitutional Instrument, Statutory Instrument, or regulation governing the exercise of that presidential discretion, in breach of Article 296 of the Constitution.
The Ghana Bar Association also directed President Mahama to release the full decision establishing a prima facie case against Chief Justice Torkornoo.
Meanwhile, the Director of Legal Affairs for the National Democratic Congress, Edudzi Tamakloe, asserted that the President acted within the law and did not err.
He stated, “A prima facie determination is derived from the validity of the petition, and that duty, the terms of the constitution prevail on the chief justice, has been performed. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents the Council of State from performing that constitutionally imposed duty once the president has referred the petition to them. Any attempt to stop that process will be subverting the constitution”.
