Citizen Petitions President Mahama to Remove Acting Chief Justice Over Alleged Misconduct

Justice system under scrutiny as Ghanaian files formal complaint against top judicial official.

A Ghanaian citizen has formally petitioned President John Dramani Mahama to initiate proceedings for the removal of Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, currently serving as Acting Chief Justice, over allegations of misconduct and breach of judicial ethics. The petition, submitted by Ghande Nalin Yussif on 6 October 2025 and acknowledged by the Office of the President on 7 October, invokes Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, which outlines the procedures for removing a justice of the superior courts.

Yussif accuses Justice Baffoe-Bonnie of conduct that, in his view, undermines public trust in the judiciary and violates both national and international standards of judicial behavior. Central to the petition is a claim that the acting Chief Justice made inappropriate remarks to a party in a pending constitutional case. According to Yussif, these remarks compromised the judge’s impartiality and contravened the Judicial Code of Conduct for Judges and Magistrates of Ghana, as well as the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.

Allegations of Bias and Impropriety

The petitioner contends that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s comments during a reported interaction with a litigant demonstrate a disregard for judicial neutrality and integrity. He argues that such conduct not only breaches ethical codes but also raises serious questions about potential conflicts of interest.

Although specific details of the remarks were not published in the petition itself, Yussif indicated that he had attached supporting documents, including media reports of the incident and a copy of a writ filed in the ongoing constitutional case. These documents, he said, serve as evidence of misconduct and should warrant an official investigation.

In his petition, Yussif wrote:

“I respectfully petition Your Excellency to take immediate steps under Article 146 of the Constitution to ensure that this matter is investigated by the appropriate tribunal and that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie is removed from office should he be found culpable.”

Article 146(1) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution allows for the removal of a justice of the superior courts based on “stated misbehaviour,” incompetence, or the inability to perform official functions due to infirmity of body or mind. The process begins with a formal petition to the President, who is then mandated to act if the allegations are deemed credible.

If the President decides the petition warrants further action, a committee or tribunal will be established to investigate the claims. Should the tribunal find the judge guilty of the stated conduct, the President may remove the justice from office.

This constitutional safeguard is designed to uphold the integrity of the judiciary while protecting judges from frivolous or politically motivated claims. However, the effectiveness of this mechanism relies on timely and transparent actions from the executive.

The significance of this case extends beyond Justice Baffoe-Bonnie as an individual. It raises important questions about the independence and accountability of Ghana’s judiciary, especially as the country approaches another election cycle. In recent years, Ghana has positioned itself as a model of democracy and rule of law in West Africa, and the credibility of its judicial institutions plays a critical role in maintaining that reputation.

Judicial credibility is particularly crucial in adjudicating electoral disputes, constitutional reviews, and human rights cases. If public confidence in judicial impartiality continues to erode, it may compromise the judiciary’s ability to function as an effective and trusted arm of government.

Across Africa, similar concerns have emerged. In Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa, there have been repeated calls for stricter enforcement of judicial ethics and more robust disciplinary mechanisms. Ghana’s response to this petition could serve as a benchmark for how the continent deals with accusations of judicial misconduct at the highest levels.

Past Precedents and Public Sentiment

This is not the first time Ghana’s judiciary has come under scrutiny. A major turning point occurred in 2015 when investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas released damning footage of judges allegedly accepting bribes. That exposé led to the dismissal or suspension of over 20 judges and sparked a national debate on the need for judicial reform.

Although subsequent reforms were introduced, public perception remains mixed. According to the 2023 Afrobarometer survey, about 31 percent of Ghanaians believe the judiciary is either “somewhat corrupt” or “very corrupt.” This lingering mistrust underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in dealing with current allegations.

As of the time of publication, there has been no official response from President Mahama or Justice Baffoe-Bonnie regarding the petition. If the President determines that the allegations are substantial enough, he is constitutionally required to establish a tribunal to conduct an independent investigation.

The Ghana Bar Association and Judicial Council may also weigh in on the issue, depending on how the situation unfolds. Legal analysts suggest that the process could take several months, depending on the scope and complexity of the tribunal’s mandate.

While the petition remains unproven at this stage, it represents a vital test of Ghana’s judicial accountability mechanisms. The outcome may set an important precedent for how future allegations of misconduct within the judiciary are handled. In a democracy, the integrity of the courts is non-negotiable, and ensuring that justices are held to the highest standards is essential for preserving public trust.

As Ghana continues to build on its democratic credentials, the coming weeks will show whether its institutions can rise to the challenge of upholding the rule of law without fear or favour.

Read more: Ghana Parliament Reconvenes October 21 as Budget, Mining Bill Await Debate