Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, the Chief Justice, has determined that there is no prima facie case to support additional inquiry into petitions asking for the Electoral Commissioner, her deputies, and the Special Prosecutor to be removed. The Minister of Government Communications made a statement on Wednesday, February 18, confirming this.
Felix Kwakye Ofosu, the Minister of State in charge of Government Communications, verified that ten distinct petitions had been filed under the constitutional removal procedure when Jubilee House received the petitions in late 2025.
Three of these targeted the dismissal of Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng, and seven targeted EC Chair Jean Mensa and her two deputies, Dr Bossman Eric Asare and Samuel Tettey. As mandated by Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, these petitions were properly submitted to Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie for a first review of their constitutionality.
According to the petitioners, who included a member of the EC’s staff, the grounds cited included various acts of misconduct, such as cronyism, abuse of authority, and blatant incompetence, which, in their opinion, had diminished public trust in the institutions that were being targeted.
Because of constitutional confidentiality rules, Joseph Blankson Adumadzie, the petitioner against the EC leadership, was unable to list his specific grievances against the administration and its integrity.
However, after looking at the petitions, the Chief Justice concluded that there was no prima facie case to support the formation of a formal inquiry committee or additional investigation. Before a five-member court may be established to look into accusations of stated misbehaviour, incompetence, or incapacity—the only reasons for which such officeholders may be removed—this constitutional threshold must be satisfied. The procedure essentially ends with the Chief Justice’s ruling since that test was not satisfied. (Standard constitutional procedure under Article 146.)
The petitions brought the targeted authorities as well as a larger public discussion on accountability and institutional autonomy to light. To safeguard institutional integrity and reputations, critics had maintained that the procedures surrounding high-level removal requests should be handled with caution and confidentiality until official criteria are fulfilled.
Source:myjoyonline.com