By Francis Ontoyin, January 5 2026.

⁠1. I have read the Deputy Attorney-General’s submissions, particularly paragraphs 18, 19, and 20, and I am surprised by the attempt to recast a prima facie determination under Article 146 as a policy decision immune from judicial review.

2. Here is where the D-AG misses the point. A prima facie finding under Article 146 is not policy. It is a legal threshold determination. In fact, the entire process stipulated under Article 146 is legal.

3. The D-AG also overstates the Council of State's composition. A body may be politically constituted and still exercise administrative or quasi-judicial functions. What matters is the nature of the power being exercised by that body. Therefore, a function expressly assigned by the Constitution to the President acting with the Council of State cannot be reclassified as “policy”.

STAR OF THE MONTH - Professor Philip Ebow Bondzi-Simpson ESQ.

Yudah Brown, Influential Law Content Creator, Declares SRC Presidential Bid

4. The prima facie determination is NOT a political choice, preference, or judgment. The simple question is: do the allegations, assumed to be true, meet the constitutional threshold to warrant further inquiry? That the determination is preliminary does not make it a policy, particularly when it can trigger the suspension of a Chief Justice and lead to grave constitutional consequences.

5. It is no answer to argue that the Council of State is not required to give reasons in the manner of a court or a judge. I do not think such a requirement is suggested. The Council of State is not a judicial body, and Article 146 does not call for a judicial judgment. However, a prima facie determination that has serious constitutional consequences on the Chief Justice must be supported by reasons sufficient to show that the decision was reached lawfully, rationally, and in accordance with Articles 23 and 296.

6. Is the decision of the President and Council of State in an Article 146 process reviewable? Yes. Of course, the courts will accord appropriate deference and will not second-guess the merits of the decision or substitute their own view with that of the president and Council of State. However, where legality, procedural fairness, or constitutional compliance is in issue, the decision is subject to review.