The learned Deputy Attorney, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai in a Statement of Case filed in the registry of the Supreme Court on the 26th day of November, 2025 with copies served on the Plaintiff, Theodore Kofi Atta-Quartey, has argued against the writ of the Plaintiff seeking a declaration that the prima facie determination of the petitions for the removal of Justice Torkornoo by the President, John Dramani Mahama and the Council of State was unconstitutional for failure to offer a reasoned opinion for their prima facie determination.

In the concise arguments of the Attorney-General (A-G), the determination of a prima facie case is a policy decision which ought not suffer judicial review powers of the Court. The Lead State Lawyer argued with reliance on English authoritIes notable amongst them is A v the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] UKHL 58 at para 29 that the Council of State, a policy body comprised of elected representatives exercise predominantly "political judgment on essential public matters", thus, their decisions may not suffer review by the Court.

STAR OF THE MONTH - Yvonne Atakora Obuobisa Esq.

Celebrating 150 years of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ghana

The Statement of case filed by the A-G further argues at paragraph 19 that owing to the fact that the Council of State and the President are not judicial bodies but policy bodies, "they do not require a reasoned decision akin to that of a judicial decision" in reaching a prima facie determination of a case to answer by a Chief Justice upon the presentation of the petitions for the removal of the Chief Justice, Her Ladyship Justice Torkornoo.

The A-G with reliance on the decison of the same Supreme Court in the voice of Amadu JSC argued that the failure to supply reasons does not nullify a proceeding, judgment or decision. The A-G argues further, that the prima facie determination of the Council of State and the President were accompanied by reasons which was made available to the Chief Justice.

Constitutional Instrument (C.I) not required for prima facie determination

The 26-paragraphed Statement of Case of the A-G argued that the absence of a Constitutional Instrument to govern the exercise of dsicretionary power under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution does not nullify the exercise of discretionary powers by the President .

According to the A-G in reliance on the cases of THE REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT, ACCRA (INDUSTRIAL & LABOUR DIVISION), EX PARTE; PETER SANGBER-DERY [TLP-SC-2017-39] and the famous 2012 case of RANSFORD FRANCE No.2 v. ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ANOR [TLP-SC-2012-54], the absence of a C.I. to regulate the exercise of the discretionary power of the President under Article 146 does not disable the exercise of the power despite the requirement of a codification mechanism under Article 296(c) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.

Dr. Srem-Sai argues that the Supreme Court in the Ransford France case resisted the arguments of the instant Plaintiff, Mr. Atta Quartey and thus, urges the Supreme Court to affirm and apply the sage words of the Date-Bah JSC on the requirement of a C.I under Article 296 of the 1992 constitution.

Hearing and Judgment

The Supreme Court is thus billed to hear parties argue out their case for the Supreme Court to fix a date for a judgment to be delivered on the matter. Read/download statement of case below: