Legal luminary Mr Tsatsu
Tsikata, has observed that the perception that the recent promotion of two Court of Appeal judges who sat on the petition against the chairperson and two deputies of the Electoral Commission “was a reward for job done” raises credibility issues for the appointment process and the said judges .
President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo on July 3,
In the letter addressed to the Speaker of Parliament, President Akufo-Addo named the nominees as Justice Samuel K. Marful-Sau, a justice of the Court of Appeal, Justice Agnes M.A. Dordzie, also a justice of the Court of Appeal, Professor Nii Ashie Kotey, a former Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Ghana and Nene A.O. Amegatcher, a private legal practitioner and former President of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA).
Justice Samuel K. Marful-Sau and Justice Agnes M.A. Dordzie were members of the committee that looked at the petition for the removal of Mrs Charlotte Osei as EC chairperson and her two deputies, Amadu Sulley and Georgina Opoku Amankwaa and recommended that they should be removed on grounds of incompetence and misconduct.
Ghana News Headlines
For latest news in Ghana, visit Graphic Online news headlines page Ghana news page
Following the judges' nomination, there have been suggestions in sections of the public that the two Court of Appeal judges were being rewarded with a promotion for a job well done.
Commenting in a television interview with Joy News on Monday, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata said: “The allegations that are being made about judges who were part of the committee that was set up, suddenly being promoted and so on, I mean, they raise concern not because those judges are not competent or qualified or whatever.”
“But even the appearance that might be given that they
“Unfortunately, and I will hold that there would be clear explanations that would be given that would satisfy Ghanaians that perhaps nothing untoward has happened in relation to that.
“One of the things that struck me from an early stage in this process was that there were questions about the identity of who the petitioners really were.
“If it is indeed true, then the petition itself and the hearing of the petition itself is open to question,” Mr Tsikata suggested.