Former District Chief Executive (DCE) of Amansie South and practicing lawyer, Clement Opoku Gyamfi, has argued that an elected Assembly Member in Ghana enjoys greater security of tenure than even the Chief Justice, who heads the judiciary.
His comments follow the September 1, 2025, removal of the then suspended Chief Justice, Her Ladyship Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkoono, by President Akufo-Addo, an action which has provoked a storm of legal and political debate.
“In Ghana, you are more secured and safe as an Assemblyman than a Chief Justice,” Mr. Gyamfi declared, stressing that the constitutional provisions regulating the removal of superior court judges leave them exposed to executive interference.
Referring to Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, he explained that once a petition is submitted against the Chief Justice, the President has little discretion but to transmit it to the Council of State, which determines whether a prima facie case is made. Should a case be established, a committee is constituted to inquire into the matter, and its recommendations are binding on the President.
“The President shall, in each case, act in accordance with the recommendations of the committee,” he quoted directly from Article 146(9), adding that “the Chief Justice and all superior court justices are at the mercies of the President and therefore any President can use the law as a weapon against the judiciary and indirectly interfere and control the third arm of the state.”
By contrast, he pointed to the difficulty of removing an elected Assembly Member under Section 10 of the Local Governance Act, 2016 (Act 936). He described the process as “herculean,” noting that it first requires at least 25 percent of registered voters in the electoral area to sign a petition to the Electoral Commission. “How do you even get signatures of 25% of the voters in your electoral area to petition the Electoral Commission?” he asked, before raising further doubts: “Will the Electoral Commission be willing to even conduct the referendum? Who will sponsor the referendum? At whose interest?”
Even after those hurdles, he noted that a recall referendum would only succeed if at least 40 percent of registered voters turn out and 60 percent of them vote in favour of removal.
“Looking at the voter turnout trend for District Level elections in Ghana, it is practically difficult to get 40% and more voters turning out to vote at a referendum. Furthermore, after achieving the 40% turnout, the law states that at least 60% of the voters at the referendum should vote in favour of the removal of the Assemblyman.”
For Mr. Gyamfi, this amounts to deliberate protection. “Juxtaposing the processes in Article 146 of the Constitution 1992 and that of Section 10 of the Local Governance Act of 2016 (Act 936), I am of the firm view that the laws of Ghana consciously give more protection to an elected Assembly Member in respect of his or her removal than the fragile protection enshrined in Article 146,” he argued.
He warned that unless these constitutional provisions are tightened, the executive will continue to wield undue influence over the judiciary. “If not amended or changed to make it more cumbersome and rigid, the story of judicial control by the executive will continue unabated,” he wrote.
He also observed that Ghana’s political duopoly fuels division whenever issues of judicial appointments or removals surface for public debate.
Mr. Gyamfi concluded his article with the same strong statement with which he began: “I conclude as I began by stating that, in Ghana, you are more secured and safe as an Assemblyman than a Chief Justice.”
