Acting Chief Executive Officer of the National Petroleum Authority (NPA), Godwin Eduzdi Tameklo has asserted that the response from the Minority in Parliament in relation to the suspension of the Chief Justice is an attempt to politicise the constitutional duty of President Mahama.
Speaking in an interview on TV3 New Day’s Big Issue, Wednesday, April 23, 2025, he insisted that the President has not taken any action contrary to the dictates of the constitution.
“The comment from the NPP micro-minority and the NPP as a whole is a calculated attempt to politicize an obvious constitutional duty that President Mahama is performing.
“But the reason why you would expect the NPP to politicise this obvious constitutional duty being performed by President Mahama is because of a certain fear and panic because if not has President Mahama done anything today outside of the scope of the constitution? The answer is no,” he stated.
President Mahama on Tuesday, April 22, 2025 suspended the Chief Justice Getrude Torkonoo after it was determined that a prima facie case has been established against the Chief Justice following consultation with the Council of State.
Shortly after that, the Minority in Parliament and members of the New Patriotic Party condemned President Mahama’s action, describing it as a “brazen judicial coup” and a blatant abuse of executive power.
In a strongly worded statement issued on Monday, April 22, the Minority accused the President of engaging in a politically motivated witch-hunt aimed at undermining the independence of Ghana’s judiciary.
But the Director of Legal Affairs of the NDC, Edudzi Tameklo argued that President Mahama’s decision to suspend the Chief Justice is only anchored on a constitutional duty.
“Article 146 is clear as to the procedures which ought to be done. Has President Mahama done anything contrary to what the constitution stipulates? The answer is no,” Edudzi added.
Meanwhile, the Executive Director of the Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh, has raised serious concerns about the constitutional framework governing the removal of superior court justices.
In a pointed critique, Prof. Prempeh took issue with Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, which sets out the procedure for the removal of justices, including the Chief Justice.
According to him, the current process lacks transparency and compromises the integrity of judicial independence.
“I have at least two problems with Article 146 in its present form,” Prof. Prempeh stated. First, he criticized the secrecy surrounding removal petitions. While he acknowledged that proceedings may need to be held in camera, he insisted that the findings, grounds, and supporting evidence for any removal petition — successful or not — should be made public afterward. “The public must not be kept in the dark as to why a removal petition failed or succeeded,” he emphasized in a post on his Facebook wall, arguing that transparency is crucial to maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.
