THE REPUBLIC vs. THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL EX-PARTE: JUSTICE KWAME OHENE-ESSEL (RTD) [2020]DLSC9337

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA AND THE ATTORNEY-GE... [2020]DLSC9337

Date	2020-06-24
Suit No.	REFERENCE NO. J6/02/2019
Citation No.	[2020]DLSC9337

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

PWAMANG JSC

MARFUL-SAU JSC

DORDZIE (MRS) JSC

AMEGATCHER JSC

KOTEY JSC

OWUSU (MS) JSC

SOLOMON OPPONG-TWUMASI FOR THE APPLICANT

LESLINE NYANKSON PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2020]DLSC9337
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA (RESPONDENT) AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE: JUSTICE KWAME OHENE-ESSEL (RTD)<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

REFERENCE
NO. J6/02/2019&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE:&nbsp; 24TH JUNE, 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>SOLOMON
OPPONG-TWUMASI FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">LESLINE
NYANKSON, PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING), PWAMANG JSC, MARFUL-SAU
JSC, DORDZIE (MRS) JSC, AMEGATCHER JSC, KOTEY JSC, OWUSU (MS) JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>DOTSE JSC:-<o:p></o:p>PROLOGUE<o:p></o:p>It is often said that “justice delayed, is justice
denied”. The reverse of this is also another common saying, it states
as follows “justice hurried, is justice buried”.<o:p></o:p>There must therefore always be a delicate balance
in the expeditious adjudication of cases to ensure that either way, no one is
unduly disadvantaged by the vigilance or indolence of the judicial system.<o:p></o:p>This case relates to a reference made by the
learned High Court Judge, Gifty Agyei Addo J, presiding over the High Court,
Human Rights Division 1, Accra in Suit No. HR/0102/2017 in an application for
Judicial Review in the nature of Certiorari and Prohibition pursuant to order
55 of C. I. 47 intitutled The Republic v 1. The Chief Justice of the
Republic of Ghana, 2. The Attorney-General – Respondents; Ex-parte Justice
Kwame Ohene-Essel (Rtd) – Applicant.<o:p></o:p>The learned trial High Court Judge Gifty Adjei
Addo J referred articles 146 (3) and (5) and also 155 (1) (b) of the
Constitution 1992 to the Supreme Court pursuant to article 130 (2) of the
Constitution for interpretation.<o:p></o:p>FACTS OF THE
CASE<o:p></o:p>The facts of this case are as follows:-<o:p></o:p>Arising from the submission of a petition by
TIGEREYEPI, a private investigative entity, acting per Anas Aremeyaw Anas on
the 31st of August 2015 to the President of the Republic of Ghana on
allegations of corruption against some members of the Judiciary, including the
Applicant herein, who was at all material times a High Court Judge at Tarkwa, the
President acting in accordance with Article 146 (3)&nbsp; of the Constitution 1992 referred the said
petition to the Chief Justice, (1st Respondent herein) to determine
whether a prima facie case for removal of the Applicant has been made.<o:p></o:p>Based on the allegations made by the TIGEREYEP1
against the Applicant which had been referred to the 1st Respondent
herein, by the President, the 1st Respondent forwarded the said
petition to the Applicant and requested him to respond to same by letter dated
9th September 2015.<o:p></o:p>The Applicant was therefore invited to the office
of the 1st Respondent on 10th September 2015, whereupon
he was given the letter and copy of the audio visual transcript of the
allegations against him and the Applicant was duly requested to respond to same
by 14th September 2015.<o:p></o:p>On 22nd September 2015, the Applicant
in the company of his Solicitor was given the opportunity to watch the audio
visual recording of his alleged misconduct.<o:p></o:p>However, the
1st Respondent after studying the petition, the audio visuals as
well as the Applicant’s response made a determination in which a prima facie
case was established against the Applicant.<o:p></o:p>