President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has excused the request started by the Alliance for Social Equity and Public Accountability (ASEPA), an anti-corruption association, looking to eliminate the Chief Justice, Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah, from office.
The President, upon the suggestions of the Council, not settled that the application by ASEPA was unmeritorious and outlandish and was without any premise to eliminate the Chief Justice.
This was contained in a proclamation gave and endorsed by him on Monday.
ASEPA had affirmed in the July 13, 2021 appeal trying to summon Article 146 of the Constitution for the evacuation of the Chief Justice that a private legitimate specialist had blamed the Chief Justice for requesting a pay off of USD5 million from his customer to influence the judgment in support of himself for a situation under the steady gaze of the Supreme Court.
The Chief Justice, hence, denied the claim and requested the Criminal Investigations Department from the Ghana Police Service to completely examine the matter.
President Akufo-Addo, following the receipt of the request, alluded the make a difference to the Council of State per of Article 122 (3) and 144 (2) of the Constitution and following a Supreme Court deciding that obliges him to counsel the Council to choose whether an appeal for the expulsion of a Chief Justice or a Justice of the Supreme Court had a by all appearances case for a prosecution interaction to start.
The Council of State, thus, presented its report to the President on Friday, August 20, 2021.
The report reasoned that ASEPA’s request for the evacuation of the Chief Justice on the grounds of “expressed rowdiness” is “silly and vexatious”, “doesn’t fulfill the at first sight guideline imagined under Article 146 (6) of the Constitution and accordingly, should be excused in limine”.
In this way, President Akufo-Addo said in the articulation that the appeal was not secured on any claim made straightforwardly or exuding from the actual applicant.
“The solicitor depends on charges made by a specific legal counselor, Mr. Kwasi Afrifa, in his reaction to a grumbling of wrongdoing made against the Chief Justice dependent on what he asserts someone else (his previous customer), advised him,” he said.
The assertion said the applicant didn’t make any claim of payoff or any type of offense against the Chief Justice, adding that the request was assumed and theoretical, giving nothing of substance to aid procedures for the expulsion of the Chief Justice.
“It is right to say that the candidate doesn’t have any close-to-home information on the matter that the applicant propels as the establishment of the request,” it said.
“The applicant neglects to meet the edge of proffering adequately solid proof on the side of his claim for the rival side to be called to reply to it.
In undeniable reality, the candidate neglects to give any proof whatsoever, on the side of the deceptive charges made against the Chief Justice. It doesn’t endeavor to prove any of the cases in any structure.
To engage further procedures on third hand and fourth hand noise, as the request is packed with, will abuse lawfully worthy guidelines of reasonableness and debilitate the viability of the highest level of the Judiciary,” he noted.
The claim against the Chief Justice emerged from the case named Ogyeedom Obranu Kwesi Atta VI vs Ghana Telecommunication Co. Ltd. (presently Vodafone Ghana Limited) and the Lands Commission.
Mr. Afrifa, an attorney, in a reaction to a request recorded against him by his customer, Nana Ogyeedom Obranu Kwesi Atta IV, asserted that his customer disclosed to him the Chief Justice had requested a USD 5 million pay off to purportedly impact his case under the steady gaze of the Supreme Court.
Nana Kwesi Atta, nonetheless, denied making the charge against the Chief Justice.
The realities are that Ogyeedom Obranu Kwesi Atta VI, had a $16 million judgment against Ghana Telecommunication Co. Ltd. (presently Vodafone Ghana Ltd.), from the High Court, Swedru.
This followed a confirmation via Lands Commission at the Swedru High Court that it had conceded the contested land to Vodafone Ghana Limited erroneously, thinking it was state land appropriately obtained by Executive Instrument and remuneration paid to Ogyeedom’s archetype in the title.
Vodafone advanced the judgment to the Court of Appeal, however, their allure was excused and the Company (Vodafone) was requested by the Court to make an installment of $4 million as part installment of the judgment obligation forthcoming the result of its allure.
Vodafone documented an appeal to the Supreme Court following its disappointment with the result in the Court of Appeal.
Forthcoming the allure at the Supreme Court, Vodafone found records, including marked receipts from the chronicles, demonstrating that the land had been properly obtained under Executive Instrument No. 86 (E.I. 86) and remuneration completely paid in 1969 by the Government of Ghana for the securing of the land to one Nana Obranu Gura II, Ogyeedom’s archetype in the title.
Vodafone then, at that point applied for leave to cite the new proof in the Supreme Court to help its allure.
The Company likewise recorded an application under the watchful eye of the Supreme Court for a stay of the execution of the rest of the judgment forthcoming the assurance of its allure.
Following the two applications, the President of the board of five judges of the Supreme Court, before whom, the application for stay of execution of the installment of the remainder of the judgment obligation to Ogyeedom was set, composed a conventional update to the Chief Justice for the improvement of the board.
The Chief Justice then, at that point managed an upgraded board of seven judges, who proceeded to concede a request for a stay of execution of Ogyeedom’s whole judgment.
The board likewise made a significant request that Ogyeedom should discount into court, the part installment of the judgment obligation of $4 million that he had effectively gotten from Vodafone.
The application for the adduction of new proof was likewise conceded for Vodafone by the Court, created diversely yet directed by the Chief Justice.
Peruse ALSO: CID To Investigate Bribery Allegation Involving Chief Justice
Ogyeedom additionally then brought an application under the watchful eye of the Supreme Court, requesting pass on to lead new proof to repudiate the new proof that Vodafone had been allowed leave to show to exhibit that the marks of Nana Obranu Gura II, his archetype in the title, on the pay receipts had been fashioned.
In the light of these two applications, the President of the board of five judges of the Supreme Court, before whom, the application for stay of execution of the installment of the remainder of the judgment obligation to Ogyeedom was put, composed a proper reminder to the Chief Justice for the improvement of the board.
By a larger part of four to one, the Court conceded the application for Ogyeedom, with the Chief Justice being the just one disagreeing, demanding that it wasn’t right to permit Ogyeedom to change his case.