Accra – A controversy has erupted surrounding a petition seeking to dissolve the committee investigating suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, sparking debate about its merits and potential impact on the judicial process. The petition, filed amidst ongoing investigations, claims ethical breaches within the committee. However, Kwaku Ansa-Asare, former Director of the Ghana School of Law, has publicly dismissed the petition as lacking substantive basis, emphasizing the need for the judicial process to proceed without undue interruption. The focus on dissolving the CJ Committee Petition, according to Ansa-Asare, is a distraction from the more critical issues at hand, particularly the presentation of concrete evidence. He suggests that such diversions may hinder the pursuit of justice and undermine the integrity of the investigation.

Ansa-Asare’s analysis underscores the critical importance of substantive evidence and adherence to due process in addressing legal challenges. He posits that the petition to dissolve the CJ Committee serves as a potential distraction from the more pressing issues facing the judiciary and, by extension, President Mahama’s administration. Instead of focusing on what he deems a minor procedural matter, Ansa-Asare suggests that all parties should concentrate on providing concrete evidence that can either substantiate or refute the allegations against the Chief Justice.

Understanding the Petition Against the CJ Committee

On May 19, a Ghanaian citizen submitted a formal petition to President Mahama, alleging that the integrity of the committee was compromised due to perceived violations of judicial ethics. Specifically, the petitioner pointed to a meeting between Justices Pwamang and Adibu-Asiedu and Thaddeus Sory, who serves as the lawyer representing one of the petitioners in the case. This meeting, the petitioner argued, cast doubt on the impartiality of the committee and warranted its dissolution.

The heart of the controversy revolves around an alleged encounter at a restaurant in Accra on May 15. This meeting occurred on the same day that the committee commenced in-camera hearings, raising questions about its timing and potential implications. Critics of the committee argue that such interactions, even if brief, could create the appearance of bias or impropriety, thereby undermining public confidence in the judicial process.

Ansa-Asare’s Defense of the CJ Committee

Ansa-Asare, after reviewing CCTV footage of the alleged encounter, has concluded that the claims made in the petition are unfounded. He argues that a brief, chance meeting should not be sufficient grounds to dissolve a committee tasked with investigating serious allegations. He stated, “Asking the president to dissolve the committee probing the petition merely because of a 20-second encounter at a restaurant…I think it should be dismissed.” This statement reflects his belief that the petition lacks merit and is an attempt to derail the investigation.

Central to Ansa-Asare’s argument is the brevity of the alleged meeting. According to his analysis of the CCTV footage, the encounter lasted less than 20 seconds. He questioned the nature of the conversation, raising doubts as to whether it even centered on the petition being investigated. “This didn’t last more than 20 seconds,” Ansa-Asare noted. “There is considerable doubt as to the nature of their conversation.” He suggests that without clear evidence that the conversation was related to the case, it is unreasonable to assume any unethical conduct.

Ansa-Asare also addressed the specific allegations leveled against individual justices on the committee. He dismissed the claims against Justice Pwamang as “frivolous” and asserted that while Justice Adibu-Asiedu was present at the meeting, the conversation did not pertain to the petition. “Justice Asiedu was there, but we have all seen that the conversation was not about the ongoing petition,” he stated, further reinforcing his argument that the petition is based on unsubstantiated claims.

The Importance of Substantive Evidence

Ansa-Asare emphasizes that legal challenges must be grounded in substantive evidence, not on minor interactions or speculative interpretations. He highlighted that the Chief Justice’s action seeks disqualification based on questions of fact, requiring a rigorous examination of the available evidence. “When we measure it against the fact that the action the Chief Justice has brought is seeking to have the two justices disqualified, legally, this is a matter or question of fact,” he explained. This underscores his belief that the focus should remain on verifiable evidence and not on peripheral issues.

In conclusion, Kwaku Ansa-Asare’s perspective offers a critical analysis of the petition seeking to dissolve the CJ Committee Petition. He argues that the petition lacks merit, emphasizing the importance of substantive evidence and the need for the judicial process to continue without unnecessary distractions. The focus, according to Ansa-Asare, should remain on the substantive issues being addressed by the CJ Committee, ensuring that judicial integrity is maintained amidst political challenges. This CJ Committee Petition requires a focus on real evidence, not speculation.