A leaked official letter has revealed the legal rationale behind the decision by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie to determine that no prima facie case exists in the petitions seeking the removal of the Electoral Commission (EC) Chairperson Jean Adukwei Mensa and her two deputies.
The development follows several petitions submitted to President John Dramani Mahama in late 2025, which called for the dismissal of the EC chairperson and her deputies on various grounds, including allegations of misconduct, incompetence, and actions perceived to undermine public confidence in the institution.
Under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, the President is required to refer petitions of this nature to the Chief Justice to assess whether they disclose sufficient evidence a prima facie case that would warrant further investigation and the establishment of an inquiry tribunal. This preliminary constitutional test is a mandatory step before any formal inquiry into the conduct of senior public office holders.
In a formal communication to the Presidency dated January 26, 2026, the Chief Justice concluded that none of the petitions met the constitutional threshold necessary to justify further proceedings. As a result, he ruled that the petitions did not disclose a prima facie case that would merit convening a tribunal or advancing the removal process against the EC leadership.
The Presidency thereafter made this determination public on February 18, 2026, emphasizing that the decision effectively terminates the removal process under the constitutional framework.
The petitions in question included several submissions targeting Ms. Mensa and her deputies Dr. Bossman Eric Asare and Samuel Tettey as well as separate petitions seeking the removal of Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng. Seven focused on the EC leadership, while three were directed at the Special Prosecutor’s office.
The legal standard for establishing a prima facie case in such constitutional matters is explicitly designed to ensure that only serious and substantiated claims proceed to formal inquiry. It requires evidence that, if not rebutted, could justify an investigation into misbehaviour, incompetence, or other lawful grounds for removal. According to constitutional interpretation, mere allegations of unpopular decisions or administrative error do not necessarily meet this test.
The leaked letter has provided clarity on the reasons for the Chief Justice’s determination, underscoring that constitutional safeguards are in place to protect institutional integrity and ensure due process. The ruling reaffirms the independence of the judiciary in carrying out its duty free from external pressures, with the Chief Justice’s role confined to preliminary constitutional scrutiny rather than the merits of the underlying allegations.
In response to the Chief Justice’s ruling, commentators have offered varied reactions. Some have praised the decision as evidence of judicial independence and adherence to constitutional procedure, while others have continued to call for broader reforms of the removal process to address perceived gaps in accountability mechanisms.
As it stands, the decision means that Ms. Mensa and her deputies will remain in office, and the removal petitions are considered constitutionally concluded unless new petitions supported by fresh evidence are filed.