Private citizen Samuel Brenya Boateng has dragged President John Dramani Mahama to the Supreme Court over alleged unconstitutional inaction following the protracted vacancy on the Council of State created by the resignation of former Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo. The plaintiff contends that the sustained failure to constitute the advisory body to its full constitutional complement undermines governance and betrays democratic accountability.
Court documents indicate that Justice Akuffo tendered her resignation from the Council in September last year, yet the Presidency only acknowledged the departure in June after media revelations forced public disclosure. She had been sworn into the ninth Council in February last year as the designated former Chief Justice under Article Eighty Nine, but ceased attending sittings shortly after her controversial abstention during deliberations on the prima facie case against then Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo. Her exit, which followed her public criticism of that removal process as resembling a treason trial, has left a constitutionally mandated seat vacant for almost a year.
Counsel for the plaintiff Jonathan Owusu Asare argues that the interregnum has rendered the Council improperly constituted and deprived the President of specialised jurisprudential guidance. He maintains that while the Constitution contemplates temporary vacancies, it does not grant indefinite licence to leave a prescribed category unfilled, insisting that almost a year without replacement evidences wilful constitutional dereliction.
The suit is therefore seeking declaratory reliefs and consequential orders compelling President Mahama to initiate consultation with Parliament within fourteen days and to appoint an eligible former Chief Justice to fill the vacancy within twenty four hours thereafter. The plaintiff asserts that the Council’s role as custodian of sober counsel requires prompt reconstitution, particularly at a time when executive decisions demand broad institutional wisdom.
The development spotlights a troubling precedent where appointment to a taxpayer-funded constitutional body is announced with fanfare while resignation is treated as private correspondence between member and Presidency. Legal observers suggest the apex court’s determination will clarify the scope of mandatory reconstitution and whether prolonged silence over such vacancies violates principles of probity, transparency and accountable governance.
Author: Korkor Anumu
Call or WhatsApp +233 20 2190 250 and share your story.
