Is the Ghana Bar Association Indirectly Asking the President to Violate the Constitution?

In recent weeks, Ghana’s political and legal circles have been shaken by the President’s decision to suspend Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo following petitions questioning her conduct. In response, the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has called on the President to revoke the suspension, describing it as unfair, biased, and prejudiced.

At first glance, the GBA’s position appears noble — defending the independence of the judiciary and promoting fairness. However, when examined through the strict lens of the rule of law, the GBA’s call reveals a troubling contradiction: it indirectly invites the President to violate the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.

Under Article 146 of the Constitution, when a petition is submitted against a Chief Justice:

• The President refers the petition to the Council of State.
• A committee is formed to determine whether a prima facie case exists.
• Once a prima facie case is established, the Chief Justice must be suspended by the President while the full inquiry proceeds.

This is not discretionary. The President is bound to act once the committee determines that a prima facie case exists. His personal opinion, political pressure, or calls from civil society have no bearing on his constitutional obligation.

By asking the President to revoke the suspension, the GBA is, in effect, encouraging the President to disregard the mandatory procedure laid out in Article 146. If the President were to comply with the GBA’s demand, he would be acting ultra vires — that is, beyond his constitutional authority — and violating the very Constitution he swore to uphold.

In a constitutional democracy like Ghana, no person or institution is above the Constitution. Article 1(2) of the 1992 Constitution makes it clear:

“Any act or omission which contravenes or is inconsistent with this Constitution shall be null and void.”

Thus, any move to revoke the Chief Justice’s suspension outside the prescribed constitutional process would be unlawful, null, and void.

The GBA, as the leading voice of the legal profession, must prioritize constitutional fidelity over expedient political or emotional appeals. As defenders of the rule of law, the GBA’s primary duty is to ensure that constitutional processes are respected — even when outcomes seem unpopular or uncomfortable.

Fairness and justice must be pursued within the framework of the Constitution, not outside of it.

The Constitution of Ghana is supreme. It binds the President, the GBA, and every citizen equally. Calls for actions that would undermine its clear provisions, however well-intentioned, are dangerous and must be rejected.

In this matter, the President must follow the law, not popular sentiment. Likewise, the GBA must guard against actions that, even unintentionally, encourage constitutional violations.

In a true democracy, the rule of law must prevail — not the rule of emotion.