Retired Supreme Court judge Justice William Atuguba has defended the procedure used by the committee that recommended the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, insisting that there is no law requiring multiple petitions to be considered simultaneously.
Concerns had been raised after the committee, chaired by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, acknowledged that although five petitions had been submitted, its recommendation to President Mahama was based on one.
Lawyers for the dismissed Chief Justice also argued that they were asked to submit written closing remarks even before the committee had finalised its report to the president.
Speaking in an exclusive interview with JoyNews on Tuesday, September 9, Justice Atuguba dismissed the suggestions, arguing that nothing in law expressly requires all petitions to be considered at once.
“Like court cases, they can consolidate them and lead evidence simultaneously in respect of all of them, and then at the end, give decisions on each of them. Or they could take them one after the other,” he explained.
“Which law says that if there is more than one petition, they must be considered at the same time? Which law?” Justice Atuguba asked.
He stressed that the approach depended on the nature and strength of the petitions.
“Maybe one has more grounds, or one came earlier, so they will start with it. If they feel they have enough evidence to justify her removal, why not? They have to present that report.”
Justice Atuguba further stated that once a committee recommends removal, the effect on the president is “automatic” under the constitution.
Read Also: Atuguba slams NPP over Chief Justice’s removal, dismisses ‘payback’ claims
About the Author
