The Supreme Court has rejected two objections put forth by Godfred Yeboah Dame, which sought the recusal of Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie and the reconstitution of the panel overseeing a motion to halt the processes for the Chief Justice’s removal.
Mr. Dame, representing the plaintiff Vincent Ekow Asafuah, contended that the Acting Chief Justice has a vested interest in the proceedings and should therefore step aside.
Additionally, he opposed the reformation of the original panel, which comprised Justices Samuel Asiedu, Ernest Gaewu, Richard Agyei Frimpong, and Yaw Asare Darko, and was led by Prof. Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu.
The current panel, however, consists of Justices Yonny Kulendi, Amadu Tanko, Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, and Ernest Gaewu, with Acting Chief Justice Baffoe-Bonnie presiding. Citing Article 157(3) of the Constitution, Godfred Dame argued that the original panel, having initiated the hearing of the injunction motion, could not be modified until the case was resolved.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, in its decision, dismissed this objection, asserting that Article 144(6) of the 1992 Constitution grants the Acting Chief Justice the authority to exercise all powers of a substantive Chief Justice, including the ability to form a panel, thus rejecting the request for Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s recusal.
Regarding the second objection, the court again dismissed the claim, indicating that the constitutional provisions referenced by Mr. Dame were not applicable in this situation.
