Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has stated that the President does not necessarily need a response from the Chief Justice before making a prima facie determination on a petition for removal.
According to him, President John Mahama’s handling of the process is not a violation of the law, as some have claimed.
Speaking on on Thursday, Kpebu explained that the procedure under Article 146(3) of the 1992 Constitution involves two distinct stages. First, the President, in consultation with the Council of State, must determine whether there is enough basis to establish a tribunal or committee.
Contrary to some arguments, he noted that the formation of a five-member tribunal is not automatic but depends on this initial assessment.
“In order to make that prima facie determination, you don’t always need the response of the Chief Justice or any other justice of the superior courts,” he stated.
He explained that a petition could be dismissed outright without requiring the Chief Justice’s input if it is unsigned, lacks the petitioner’s name, is incoherent, contains insults, or fails to present any substantive claims.
“What the President cannot do is find merit in a petition and refuse to hear from the Chief Justice before proceeding to the second stage, where a tribunal would be formed,” he clarified.
Kpebu’s remarks were in response to former Deputy Attorney General Alfred Tuah-Yeboah, who insisted that Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo must be notified and given an opportunity to respond before any determination is made.
Meanwhile, the Chief Justice has officially requested copies of the petitions submitted to President Mahama seeking her removal from office.
In a letter to the President on Thursday, March 27, she appealed for access to the documents to enable her to respond accordingly.