Old Tafo Member of Parliament, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, has described the Supreme Court’s narrow 3-2 decision against his injunction application as a clear indication that the arguments advanced in court were grounded in strong legal reasoning.
Speaking to journalists after the ruling on Tuesday, May 6, Assafuah maintained that the close split among the justices of the apex court shows that even at the highest level, there was significant weight to the issues raised in his application seeking to halt further action on the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.
“Well, it is not the end of the road. Let us get the reasoning first. Of course, the 3-2 decision suggests that the Supreme Court itself sees some reason in the arguments that we made in court. It tells you that our arguments or the reasoning that we presented in court were quite potent,” he stated.
Assafuah, through his counsel Godfred Yeboah Dame, had filed an injunction application against the transmission of petitions to the Council of State seeking the removal of the Chief Justice.
The MP sought to halt the President’s referral of the petitions on grounds of potential constitutional breaches and procedural concerns.
However, the court, by a majority of three to two, dismissed the application. Justices Mensah Bonsu and Ernest Gaewu dissented, showing a split opinion on the matter.
Before the main application was dismissed, the court had earlier unanimously overruled an objection raised by Godfred Dame against Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie’s participation in the case.
Dame had argued that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie stood to be directly affected by the outcome, suggesting a conflict of interest. However, the court disagreed, affirming his legitimacy to preside over the proceedings.
Deputy Attorney-General Justice Srem Sai opposed Dame’s objection in court, emphasizing that the constitutionally-mandated functions of the most senior judge cannot be set aside based on speculative claims.
Despite the loss, Assafuah said he and his legal team would study the detailed reasoning of the justices before determining their next steps.
“The decision is not the final word yet,” he insisted, hinting at possible future legal action.
