Politics

Amidu defends in-camera CJ probe, cites constitutional precedent

Former Special Prosecutor Martin Amidu has strongly criticised suggestions that the ongoing process to investigate the Chief Justice should be held publicly, describing such calls as rooted in “political preferences” rather than constitutional merit.

Amidu argued that the 1992 Constitution’s provisions for the removal of Superior Court Justices were carefully refined over decades to protect judicial integrity.

“The current process is not new. It is an improvement upon earlier constitutions—from 1969 through 1979—and was designed deliberately to shield the Judiciary from politicised trials,” he said in an open letter sighted by MyNewsGH.

Amidu noted that the key advancement in the 1979 Constitution was the introduction of a detailed petition, establishment of a prima facie case, and holding hearings in camera—all intended to uphold the dignity and independence of the judiciary.

“The framers were clear: such proceedings must not become public spectacles,” he stressed.

He also pointed out that the 1992 Constitution further democratised the process by altering the composition of the inquiry committee—reducing Supreme Court representation and adding ordinary citizens. “Only self-conceited lawyers would claim those citizen-electors had no sense of justice,” he added.

Critiquing recent commentary that suggests the Chief Justice is being unfairly targeted due to political motivations, Amidu said the constitutional route being followed has been in place for over 50 years.

“The President, under this scheme, is merely a conveyer belt—receiving petitions and consulting the Council of State. He doesn’t act arbitrarily,” Amidu clarified.

He cautioned that those pushing for public hearings—especially when the sitting President is from an opposing political tradition—must offer “credible arguments” to override long-established constitutional reasoning.

“If those who once served Presidents and appointed judges now question the very framework they operated under, it’s not the Constitution that has failed. It’s their own shifting interests,” he said.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button