Read also:
- Ghana’s Small-Scale Gold Exports Soar to Record $6.3 Billion
- Prostate Cancer Awareness: Breaking Down Myths and Stigma in Ghana.
- Ghana’s Peace Must Be Safeguarded – Dr. Zanetor Agyeman-Rawlings Urges Youth.
- William Ruto’s firstborn son Nick resurfaces with full-grown beard at wedding.
- The incredible Premier League table since Nuno Espirito Santo joined Nottingham Forest.
Retired Supreme Court Judge, Justice William Atuguba, has come out strongly to defend the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, dismissing claims that it was part of a grand political scheme to reset the judiciary. According to Justice Atuguba, President John Dramani Mahama’s decision was rooted in the Constitution and should be regarded as a legitimate act of governance rather than a political vendetta.
Justice Atuguba emphasized that the President’s actions were in line with the Constitution, which outlines the procedure for removing a Chief Justice. He noted that the same constitutional provision, “stated misbehaviour,” had previously been used to remove former Electoral Commission Chairperson Charlotte Osei and former CHRAJ Commissioner Lauretta Vivian Lamptey without any objection from the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP).
Justice Atuguba strongly condemned the NPP’s stance on the issue, describing it as reckless. He questioned why the party had no trouble with the removal of Charlotte Osei and Lauretta Vivian Lamptey under the same constitutional provision, but were now objecting to the removal of Chief Justice Torkornoo. “Don’t forget that Charlotte Osei and the CHRAJ Commissioner, one lady, [Madam Lamptey], it was under the same conditions, the same provisions, stated misbehaviour. And is it not these people who did it? At that time, did they have trouble with what stated misbehaviour is? Why suddenly, when their appointee is involved in the same thing, they say hey?” he questioned.
Justice Atuguba also pushed back against suggestions that the Chief Justice’s removal was an act of political revenge. He emphasized that the President’s decision was based on the Constitution and the need to ensure that the judiciary is accountable to the people. “When parties are contesting elections, don’t they have their manifestos as to what they will come and do when elected into power? So, when they are elected and they are implementing the manifesto, what’s wrong with it? It is premeditated and endorsed by the voters,” he explained.
By epos
