GOGO Addresses the Facebook Nation

1. Introduction

This opinion addresses the constitutional implications of the Chief Justice’s public commentary concerning ongoing proceedings initiated under Article 146 of the Constitution.

In particular, it evaluates the legality of such commentary in light of Article 146(8), which mandates that proceedings for the removal of a judge be conducted in camera.

Taste the Goodness: EL Blends All-Natural Cold-Pressed Juices

It further examines whether such conduct is constitutionally permissible, whether it constitutes a separate and independent ground for removal from office, and whether it rises to the level of a constitutional offence.

 

2. Personal Caveat: Prior Petition for Removal

It is important to disclose that I submitted a petition on December 18, 2024, seeking the removal of the Chief Justice. That petition was reviewed and dismissed by the then President on the basis that it did not meet the prima facie threshold under Article 146(3).

That notwithstanding, I offer this analysis in good faith, consistent with my constitutional right and duty as a citizen. My prior petition does not prejudice this opinion, nor does it preclude me from commenting candidly and objectively on the current constitutional concerns. My position remains anchored in fidelity to constitutional governance, not personal sentiment.

 

3. The Binding Nature of Article 146(8)

Article 146(8) of the Constitution provides:

“All proceedings under this article shall be held in camera.”

This provision is unambiguous (see Agyei Twum). It does not vest discretion in any person, including the Chief Justice. The requirement that such proceedings be conducted privately is a mandatory constitutional directive, designed to protect the integrity of the process, shield the judiciary from public pressure, and ensure procedural fairness.

As the apex judicial officer of the Republic, the Chief Justice is under a heightened obligation to uphold and comply with every provision of the Constitution.

A public statement, whether issued personally or through authorized intermediaries, on a matter that the Constitution explicitly mandates to be conducted in camera amounts to wilful noncompliance with Article 146(8).

 

4. The Legal Consequences of Noncompliance

(a) Constitutional Supremacy and Equal Application

Article 1(2) affirms:

“This Constitution shall be the supreme law of Ghana and any other law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”

Additionally, Article 2(1) empowers any person to bring an action before the Supreme Court where it is alleged that an act or omission contravenes the Constitution. Under Article 2(2), the Supreme Court may issue consequential orders to secure compliance.

A wilful violation of Article 146(8) is, therefore, not a matter of procedural misjudgment. It is a constitutional breach, enforceable through judicial review (see below).

(b) Application to All Persons

All persons are bound by Supreme Court orders and constitutional commands. Any disobedience of an order to conduct proceedings in camera would be contemptuous and punishable by law. It follows, a fortiori, that the Chief Justice cannot claim a privileged exemption from constitutional obligations that bind everyone else.

 

5. Grounds for Removal: A Separate and Independent Breach

Article 146(1) provides that the Chief Justice may be removed from office for “stated misbehaviour or incompetence.”

The wilful violation of a direct constitutional command—especially one governing the process of her own potential removal—constitutes a clear and self-contained instance of stated misbehaviour.

This conduct need not have been included in the original petition to be actionable. The committee established under Article 146 functions as a quasi-judicial body of inquiry. As such, it is empowered to examine relevant conduct that arises during the course of the proceedings, particularly where such conduct bears directly on the Chief Justice’s respect for constitutional obligations, impartiality, and fitness for office.

This position is supported by the logic of Article 146(3)–(5), which mandates a process of investigation, not mere petition review. If during the inquiry, new or continuing misconduct emerges, especially misconduct that undermines the very process itself, the committee is not only permitted but duty-bound to take it into account. Limiting the scope only to facts stated in the initial petition would immunize further breaches committed in the course of the investigation itself.

This obligation is even more pressing in light of the judicial oath of office, which the Chief Justice must swear before assuming her role:

“ … and that I will at all times uphold, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Ghana. (So help me God).”

A wilful and public defiance of Article 146(8) is not only inconsistent with this oath—it is a repudiation of it. It strikes at the moral and constitutional foundation on which judicial authority rests.

Therefore, the Chief Justice’s public commentary—issued in defiance of Article 146(8)—constitutes an actionable breach that can, and must, be considered as a separate and independent ground for removal, notwithstanding its absence from the initial petition.

The seriousness of such a breach is underscored by Article 69(1)(a) of the Constitution, which provides that:

“The President shall be removed from office if he is found… to have acted in wilful violation of the oath of allegiance and the presidential oath set out in the Second Schedule to, or in wilful violation of any other provision of, this Constitution.”

If the Constitution permits the removal of a President for wilfully violating their oath or any constitutional provision, it cannot be argued that the Chief Justice, who swears an equivalent constitutional oath, should be held to a lower standard. The principle of constitutional equality and institutional accountability demands no less.

 

6. Beyond Misbehaviour: A Constitutional Offence

The Chief Justice’s conduct must be seen not merely as misconduct, but as a constitutional offence. It reflects:

• Wilful defiance of a constitutional obligation;
• Disregard for procedural due process;
• Erosion of public trust in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

If this act is left unchecked, it sets a precedent that constitutional compliance is optional for those at the highest levels of judicial office.

 

7. Rebutting the Claim of Judicial Persecution

The narrative that the Supreme Court is “out to get” the Chief Justice is constitutionally irrelevant. Under Article 2(1), all persons are equal before the Constitution and equally subject to its constraints.

If every citizen must obey an order to conduct proceedings in camera, then so must the Chief Justice. Disagreement with the judiciary or a constituonal investigative vessel does not confer a license to flout constitutional requirements. The proper response lies in lawful remedies, not unilateral defiance.

 

8. The Bottom Line

If the Chief Justice is permitted to violate Article 146(8), we must ask: are constitutional provisions still binding? Are Supreme Court orders still authoritative? If not, then we are no longer a nation governed by law, but a system of arbitrary discretion.

The answer is stark and unavoidable: we either uphold constitutionalism or we embrace impunity. We cannot do both.

 

9. A Call to Rise Above Politics

The current constitutional crisis transcends party lines. It must not be reduced to political theatre or partisan calculations. It is a moment that calls for collective maturity, institutional restraint, and moral clarity.

All actors—citizens, politicians, and legal professionals alike—must set aside partisan interest and reaffirm a shared commitment to the supremacy of the Constitution. This is not about victory or defeat. It is about preserving the rule of law and protecting the very architecture of our democratic Republic.

 

10. Conclusion

A public statement concerning Article 146 proceedings—made in the face of a constitutional injunction requiring in camera conduct:

✅Constitutes a separate and independent ground for removal under Article 146(1);
✅Amounts to a constitutional offence, enforceable under Article 2(1) and (2);
✅Subverts judicial authority and erodes the supremacy of the Constitution.

A constitutional democracy cannot survive if its highest judicial officer retains the right to selectively obey constitutional provisions. We either live under constitutional rule or we do not.

 

Good morning from Singapore.

PS: Yɛde post no bɛto hɔ. Yɛnyɛ comprehension consultants.

Da Yie!