Petition for elimination of Justice Yoni Kulendi brushed aside – Life Pulse Daily

Introduction

In December 2025 a high‑profile petition calling for the removal of Justice Yonny Kulendi from the Ghana Supreme Court was formally dismissed by President John Dramani Mahama. The request, filed by private citizen Daniel Marfo Ofori‑Atta, alleged that Justice Kulendi had abused his judicial position to secure bail for a family member and to influence a pending criminal case. Although the petition attracted considerable media attention, the President’s response made clear that the matter would not proceed to any formal investigation. This article explains the sequence of events, the constitutional framework that governed the petition, the arguments presented by the petitioner and the government, and the broader implications for judicial accountability in Ghana.

Key Points

The petition and its purpose

The petition, dated 30 September 2025, asked the President to “eliminate” Justice Yonny Kulendi from his position as a Justice of the Supreme Court. The petitioner claimed that the Justice had intervened in the Republic v. Cassiel Ato Forson & 2 others trial to facilitate bail for his cousin, Richard Jakpa, who was the third accused in that case. The petition further alleged that such conduct breached the code of conduct expected of a senior judge and therefore rendered him unfit to continue serving on the apex court.

The President’s response

On 4 December 2025, Dr Callistus Mahama, Secretary to the President, sent a letter to the petitioner confirming that the President had “brushed aside” the petition. The letter referenced Article 146(3) of the 1992 Constitution, which sets out the procedure for removing a superior court judge. According to the letter, the President had referred the petition to Chief Justice Paul Baffoe‑Bonnie on 20 October 2025 for an assessment of whether a prima facie case existed.

The Chief Justice’s determination

Chief Justice Baffoe‑Bonnie’s reply, dated 2 December 2025, concluded that the petition failed to meet the evidential threshold required under Article 146(3). The Chief Justice described the petitioner’s allegations as “a transparent distortion of the document” and emphasized that the sworn testimony of Mr Jakpa did not support the claim that Justice Kulendi had improperly interfered with the judicial process. Consequently, the Chief Justice recommended that no further steps be taken.

Legal implications of the dismissal

Under Ghana’s constitutional framework, the removal of a Supreme Court justice requires a two‑step process: a parliamentary resolution after a finding of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity,” and subsequently, a presidential proclamation. The President may only act on the recommendation of the Chief Justice after a prima facie case has been established. Because the petition was deemed insufficient, the constitutional pathway for removal was never triggered, leaving the petitioner with no legal recourse at the executive level.

Background

Who is Justice Yonny Kulendi?

Justice Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi was sworn in as a Justice of the Ghana Supreme Court on 26 May 2020, alongside Professor Henrietta J. A. N. Mensa‑Bonsu. His appointment followed a vetting process by Parliament’s Appointments Committee on 11‑12 May 2020 and subsequent parliamentary approval on 20 May 2020. Prior to his elevation, Justice Kulendi served as a high‑court judge and accumulated over a decade of experience in adjudicating complex civil and criminal matters.

The case that sparked the petition

The allegations stem from the trial Republic v. Cassiel Ato Forson & 2 others, a high‑profile matter involving alleged financial malfeasance. Richard Jakpa, who was the third accused, previously held the position of Director of Operations at the National Security Secretariat. Daniel Marfo Ofori‑Atta, the petitioner, claimed that Justice Kulendi attempted to use his judicial authority to secure bail for Jakpa, thereby obstructing the course of justice.

Previous attempts at investigation

Before filing the petition with the Presidency, Ofori‑Atta had already approached the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service, seeking a criminal probe into the alleged interference. The CID’s preliminary review did not yield any actionable evidence, prompting the petitioner to elevate his request to the highest executive office.

Analysis

Constitutional basis for judicial removal

Article 146(3) of the 1992 Constitution stipulates that a Justice of the Superior Court may be removed by the President on the recommendation of the Council of State, following a parliamentary resolution passed by a two‑thirds majority. The process begins with a petition that must demonstrate a prima facie case of misbehaviour or incapacity. If the petition fails to meet this standard, the President is constitutionally barred from proceeding further.

Why the petition did not meet the prima facie threshold

The Chief Justice’s letter highlighted several deficiencies: (1) the petition relied heavily on unverified newspaper reports; (2) it failed to attach any documentary evidence such as court transcripts, affidavits, or official correspondence; and (3) the alleged “misbehaviour” was not corroborated by independent witnesses. Moreover, the sworn statement of Mr Jakpa, which the petition claimed supported the allegation, was found to be inconsistent with the official record of the trial. These gaps prevented the petition from establishing a credible factual foundation.

The role of the President and the Secretary to the President

The President’s authority to “brush aside” a petition is not an act of dismissal in the sense of ignoring the request, but rather a constitutional acknowledgment that the petition does not satisfy the statutory requirements for further action. Dr Callistus Mahama’s letter served as a formal conduit for communicating this determination to the petitioner, confirming that the matter was concluded under the law.

Political context and public perception

Although the petition did not succeed, it sparked a nationwide debate on judicial independence, accountability, and the extent to which private citizens can influence the removal of judges. Critics argued that the case revealed potential vulnerabilities in the vetting and oversight mechanisms for senior judges, while supporters of the petition maintained that it was a necessary step to safeguard public confidence in the judiciary.

Comparative perspective

Similar petitions have been filed in other Commonwealth jurisdictions where citizens can petition the head of state for the removal of judges. In Kenya, for example, a parliamentary committee must first assess the petition before any removal can be considered. Ghana’s process, however, places the initial evidentiary burden on the petitioner, making it more restrictive than some of its peers.

Practical Advice

For citizens who wish to file a petition against a judge

• Gather solid evidence: Collect court transcripts, official documents, and sworn affidavits that directly relate to the alleged misconduct.
• Follow the procedural timeline: Submit the petition within the statutory period and ensure it is addressed to the correct authority (the President, through the Secretary to the President).
• Seek legal counsel: Engage an attorney experienced in constitutional law to review the petition for compliance with Article 146(3).
• Maintain transparency: Disclose any potential conflicts of interest and avoid making unsubstantiated claims that could be deemed defamatory.

For legal professionals advising petitioners

• Conduct a preliminary case assessment to determine whether the alleged conduct meets the threshold of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”
• Prepare a comprehensive brief that outlines the factual background, the legal basis for removal, and the evidentiary support.
• Advise the petitioner on alternative avenues, such as filing a complaint with the Judicial Council or pursuing a public interest litigation approach.

For journalists covering judicial petitions

• Verify the authenticity of all documents before publishing.
• Quote primary sources, such as the President’s letter and the Chief Justice’s response, to avoid misrepresentation.
• Provide context on the constitutional requirements for removing a judge to help readers understand why a petition may be dismissed.

FAQ

Conclusion

The petition to eliminate Justice Yonny Kulendi from the Ghana Supreme Court was ultimately dismissed because it did not satisfy the stringent evidentiary requirements set out in Article 146(3) of the 1992 Constitution. President John Dramani Mahama, acting on the recommendation of Chief Justice Paul Baffoe‑Bonnie, formally communicated that no further steps would be taken. While the petition raised important questions about judicial accountability, the constitutional framework prioritises due process and protects judges from baseless accusations. For citizens and stakeholders interested in strengthening judicial oversight, the case underscores the necessity of meticulous evidence gathering, adherence to legal procedures, and an understanding of the distinct roles played by the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature.