Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu says the legal challenge filed by former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo will likely end up before the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling on the limits of High Court jurisdiction in cases arising from Article 146 impeachment proceedings.
Speaking on the matter on the KeyPoints on October 18, Kpebu noted that there is currently no existing Supreme Court decision that clearly spells out which aspects of an Article 146 process can or cannot be reviewed by a High Court.
For that reason, he expects the Attorney-General to raise a preliminary objection on jurisdiction, a move that could push the issue to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
“We like to be guided by Supreme Court decisions. On this particular one, there is no decision that says the High Court can do this part and not that part,” he said.
Kpebu stressed that whatever the final outcome, former Chief Justice Torkornoo has the constitutional right to question the committee’s work and to seek accountability.
“She has a right to challenge. Accountability can never be denied. Whether it is done in the High Court or the Supreme Court, we don’t know yet, but accountability yes,” he emphasized.
He however pointed out what he considers the strongest ground in her case: the failure of the President to provide reasons for establishing a prima facie case before her removal.
Referencing a past Supreme Court decision from the early 2000s, Kpebu said the apex court itself held that failing to provide reasons raises reasonable suspicion of bias and unlawfulness.
“The Supreme Court has said before that the failure to give reasons gives way for people to think you are biased, malicious or thoughtless. So that failure is bad. It is a serious issue,” he noted.
Kpebu argued that while there may be disagreements over the scope of the High Court’s powers, there is no legal barrier preventing a citizen from questioning the process when constitutional principles like fairness, transparency and justice are at stake.
He concluded that whatever happens, the case will serve as a precedent for future removals and will shape how Article 146 matters are managed going forward.
