In a sharply critical commentary, former Special Prosecutor Martin Amidu has taken issue with remarks made by retired Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo regarding Article 146 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.
Speaking before the Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) convened by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), Ms. Akuffo was reported on 30 April 2025 as having described the current process for suspending and removing a Chief Justice as “unfair,” calling for amendments to make the procedure more stringent.
But Martin Amidu finds the timing and context of her comments problematic. In his latest opinion piece, he questioned the credibility and appropriateness of such a suggestion, given Ms. Akuffo’s recent involvement in the constitutional processes she now seeks to critique.
“Ms. Sophia Abena Boafoa Akuffo, a Nana Akufo-Addo appointed retired Chief Justice and a current member of the Council of State… was consulted in accordance with Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution before the President appointed a committee to inquire into three petitions… that resulted in the suspension of the respondent by the President,” Amidu wrote, referencing her role in advising the President on a current matter involving the potential removal of the sitting Chief Justice.
Ms. Akuffo’s proposal to the CRC includes a call for the introduction of a right of appeal for any Chief Justice found culpable by an investigative committee. Amidu, however, argues that this stands in stark contradiction to her previous complicity in applying the very process she now deems unjust.
For him, it raises troubling questions: “Why did Ms. Akuffo not raise these same concerns at the time she was actively participating in the process? Why now, when the mechanisms of Article 146 have already been set in motion?”
Amidu’s criticism centers not only on the perceived inconsistency of Ms. Akuffo’s stance but also on the implications it holds for constitutional stability and fairness. In his view, retroactively questioning the legitimacy of processes one has benefitted from—or actively participated in—erodes public trust and undermines the integrity of constitutional governance.
“Such a suggestion, coming from a former Chief Justice and sitting Council of State member, sends a confusing message,” he asserts, suggesting that the former top judge’s comments may be viewed as an attempt to delegitimize outcomes of an ongoing constitutional process.
Amidu’s piece invites broader public reflection: Should constitutional reform debates be led by individuals with active stakes in the systems they propose to change? Or does their experience lend credibility to their calls for reform?
