Mahama Rejects Removal Petitions: Constitutional Implications of the Chief Justice’s Prima Facie Finding

In a significant constitutional development, President John Dramani Mahama has formally rejected multiple petitions seeking the removal of the Electoral Commission (EC) Chairperson and the Special Prosecutor (OSP). This decision follows a definitive determination by the Chief Justice that the petitions failed to establish a prima facie case, thereby terminating the constitutional process under Article 146 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution. This article provides a comprehensive, SEO-optimized analysis of the legal procedures, political context, and broader implications for governance and institutional independence in Ghana.

Introduction: The Constitutional Veto and Its Immediate Impact

The recent conclusion of high-stakes removal petitions against two of Ghana’s most critical independent constitutional offices—the Electoral Commission and the Office of the Special Prosecutor—has sparked intense public and legal discourse. President Mahama’s action, predicated on the Chief Justice’s advisory opinion, underscores the rigorous filters built into Ghana’s constitutional framework to safeguard public officers from frivolous or politically motivated removal attempts. This event serves as a pivotal case study in the operational dynamics of Article 146, the balance between accountability and institutional security, and the precise legal meaning of a prima facie case in the Ghanaian context.

This analysis will deconstruct the sequence of events, clarify the constitutional mechanics, examine the grounds cited in the petitions, and explore the potential long-term effects on public trust, political strategy, and the independence of key state institutions. We will address common questions, provide practical context for citizens, and ground all discussion in the verified text of the 1992 Constitution and established legal principles.

Key Points: What You Need to Know

• Ten Petitions Filed: A total of ten separate petitions were submitted in late 2025, targeting EC Chair Jean Mensa, her deputies, and Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng.
• Constitutional Gateway: All petitions were initially referred to the Chief Justice for mandatory preliminary scrutiny under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.
• Prima Facie Deficiency: Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie advised that none of the petitions disclosed a prima facie case of misbehaviour, incompetence, or infirmity.
• Process Terminated: Without a prima facie finding, the constitutional process ends. A tribunal cannot be constituted, and the President is bound to reject the petitions.
• Legal Threshold: A prima facie case requires credible, specific evidence that, if uncontroverted, would justify a full inquiry. It is not a finding of guilt.
• Presidential Duty: The President’s rejection is a constitutional obligation following the Chief Justice’s advice, not a discretionary political act.
• Broader Debate: The episode reignites discussions on petition ethics, institutional protection, and the public’s right to hold leaders accountable within constitutional bounds.

Background: The Article 146 Removal Process Explained

The Constitutional Framework for Removing Key Office-Holders

Ghana’s 1992 Constitution establishes a meticulous, multi-stage process for the removal of holders of specific high offices, including the Electoral Commission Chairperson and Deputy Chairpersons, the Special Prosecutor, the Auditor-General, and the Chief Justice. This process is codified in Article 146 and is designed to be a serious, quasi-judicial procedure that balances the need for accountability with robust protections against abuse.

Step-by-Step: The Article 146 Procedure

1. Petition Submission: A petition, signed by at least one-third of all Members of Parliament (currently 92 MPs), must be presented to the President alleging grounds for removal. The grounds are strictly limited to: (a) stated misbehaviour, (b) incompetence, or (c) infirmity (physical or mental).
2. Referral to the Chief Justice: Upon receipt, the President must refer the petition to the Chief Justice for a preliminary examination. This is a mandatory, non-negotiable first filter.
3. The Prima Facie Determination: The Chief Justice, after examining the petition and any supporting evidence, decides whether a prima facie case exists. This is a legal assessment of the petition’s sufficiency on its face.
4. Consequences of the Finding:
   • If NO prima facie case: The Chief Justice advises the President accordingly. The President shall reject the petition, and the process terminates immediately. No tribunal is formed.
   • If a prima facie case IS found: The Chief Justice advises the President to constitute a five-member tribunal (comprising two Supreme Court justices and three other persons) to investigate the allegations fully. This tribunal operates like a court of inquiry.
5. Tribunal Report and Final Removal: If a tribunal is formed and finds the allegations proven, it recommends removal to the President, who then acts on the recommendation. Removal is final.

The Significance of the “Prima Facie” Threshold

The term prima facie is Latin for “at first sight” or “on the face of it.” In this constitutional context, it is a low but critical evidentiary threshold. The Chief Justice does not determine guilt or ultimate truth. Instead, the inquiry is: Does the petition, with its attached evidence, contain specific, credible allegations that, if proven in a full tribunal hearing, could legally justify the removal of the officer?

Key aspects of this threshold:

• Specificity: Vague, generalised accusations of “incompetence” or “loss of confidence” are insufficient. The petition must detail specific acts or omissions constituting the stated ground.
• Credible Evidence: The petition must be supported by documentary evidence, affidavits, or other material that lends basic credibility to the claims. Mere hearsay or political rhetoric typically fails.
• Legal Sufficiency: The alleged conduct must, if true, potentially meet the constitutional definition of “misbehaviour,” “incompetence,” or “infirmity.”

This threshold acts as a crucial gatekeeper, preventing the constitutional removal process from being weaponised for political harassment or to settle scores, thereby protecting the independence and stability of constitutional offices.

Analysis: Dissecting the Petitions and the Chief Justice’s Ruling

The Nature and Scope of the Filed Petitions

The ten petitions, filed in late 2025 and confirmed by Minister of State for Government Communications Felix Kwakye Ofosu, represented a concerted effort to unseat the leadership of two powerful institutions. The breakdown was clear:

• Seven petitions targeted the entire leadership of the Electoral Commission: Chairperson Jean Mensa and her two Deputy Chairpersons, Dr. Bossman Eric Asare and Samuel Tettey.
• Three petitions sought the removal of the Special Prosecutor, Kissi Agyebeng.

The petitions were not anonymous. One was notably lodged by an EC staff member, Joseph Blankson Adumadzie, whose specific allegations, while publicly alluded to in terms of “coordination and integrity issues,” remain constitutionally confidential per Article 146’s secrecy provisions. Other petitioners’ identities and full allegations have not been officially disclosed, a standard practice to protect the process from undue influence.

Alleged Grounds: Misbehaviour, Incompetence, and Eroded Confidence

Based on public summaries and media reports, the petitioners advanced several recurring themes:

• Alleged Misbehaviour: Claims of cronyism, abuse of office, and administrative impropriety in appointments and procurement within the EC and OSP.
• Alleged Incompetence: Criticisms relating to operational coordination, perceived failures in administrative efficiency, and decisions that allegedly undermined institutional effectiveness.
• Erosion of Public Confidence: A more subjective ground, arguing that the conduct of the office-holders had so severely damaged public trust in the institutions that their continued tenure was detrimental to the state.

Critical Legal Note: “Loss of public confidence” is not, in itself, a standalone ground for removal under Article 146. The Constitution requires proof of the specific grounds of misbehaviour, incompetence, or infirmity. While a loss of confidence may be a *consequence* of proven misbehaviour or incompetence, it cannot be the primary legal basis for a petition.

Why the Chief Justice Found No Prima Facie Case

While the Chief Justice’s detailed legal reasoning is not public (again, due to confidentiality), the outcome—no prima facie case—indicates a fundamental failure by the petitioners to meet the procedural and evidentiary gateway. Likely deficiencies identified by the CJ’s review include:

1. Lack of Specificity: Allegations were likely framed in broad, political terms rather than pinpointing specific, legally cognisable acts of misbehaviour or instances of demonstrable incompetence.
2. Insufficient Corroboration: The supporting evidence (affidavits, documents) may have been anecdotal, hearsay-based, or failed to directly link the named officers to the alleged misconduct.
3. Failure to Meet Legal Definitions: The described conduct, even if accepted as true, may not have met the high legal bar for what constitutes “misbehaviour” (which implies wilful wrongdoing or serious breach of duty) or “incompetence” (which implies a chronic inability to perform the functions of the office, not mere policy disagreement or error).
4. Procedural Defects: Potential issues with the petition’s form, the number or qualification of signatories, or the manner of presentation could have been fatal.

The ruling is a procedural dismissal, not an exoneration on the merits. It means the evidence presented was too weak or vague to warrant the extraordinary step of convening a national tribunal to investigate the leaders of these constitutional bodies.

Political and Institutional Context

The petitions emerged against a backdrop of heightened political tension and public scrutiny of both the EC (following the 2024 elections) and the OSP (following high-profile investigations). For critics, the petitions represented a necessary accountability tool. For supporters of the targeted officers and many legal scholars, they represented a dangerous precedent of using the removal process to intimidate and destabilise independent institutions.

The Chief Justice’s ruling, therefore, is a victory for the latter interpretation. It reinforces that constitutional removal is not a remedy for political dissatisfaction or policy disagreement. The high threshold protects institutional independence, a cornerstone of Ghana’s democratic architecture, from being eroded by transient political pressures.

Practical Advice: For Citizens, Media, and Political Actors

For Citizens and Civil Society

• Understand the Threshold: Recognise that a prima facie finding is a legal standard, not a popularity contest. Public sentiment, while important, does not satisfy Article 146’s requirements.
• Promote Informed Discourse: When discussing such petitions, focus on the specific constitutional grounds and the quality of evidence presented, not just the political desirability of removal.
• Use Proper Channels: Legitimate grievances about public officers should be channelled through existing oversight mechanisms (e.g., audits, parliamentary committees, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice) before resorting to the drastic Article 146 route.

For Media and Commentators

• Precision in Reporting: Clearly distinguish between “allegations,” “findings of a tribunal,” and “a prima facie determination by the Chief Justice.” Avoid headlines that imply guilt or exoneration where only procedural sufficiency is at issue.
• Contextualise the Process: Educate the public on the Article 146 steps. Explain why the Chief Justice’s role is a preliminary filter and what happens next if that filter is passed.
• Guard Against Speculation: Do not publish unverified details of the petitions’ contents, as confidentiality is a constitutional requirement (Article 146(7)) designed to protect all parties.

For Political Actors and Parliamentarians

• Exercise Extreme Diligence: Before signing or initiating an Article 146 petition, ensure the allegations are specific, grave, and backed by credible, documented evidence that can survive the prima facie test.
• Avoid Politicisation: Using the removal process as a routine political weapon will inevitably lead to failures like this one and will devalue the constitutional mechanism for when it is genuinely needed.
• Respect Institutional Independence: The independence of the EC and OSP is not a theoretical concept. It is essential for credible elections and the fight against corruption. Frivolous attacks on their leadership undermine national stability.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions and Misconceptions

Q1: Does “No Prima Facie Case” Mean the EC and OSP Heads Are Completely Exonerated?

A: No. It means the petition process is over. The Chief Justice’s finding is limited to the sufficiency of the petition’s front-end evidence. It is not a judgment on the actual conduct or innocence of the officers. They remain in office, and any separate criminal or administrative investigations by other bodies (like the Auditor-General or the police) can still proceed based on independent evidence.