President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has dismissed a petition by pressure group, the Alliance for Social Equity and Public Accountability (ASEPA) to remove Chief Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah from office for alleged bribery.
The President, in concert with the Council of State, concludes that ASEPA failed to establish any prima facie case to warrant the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice, and dismisses same as unmeritorious.
The President’s decision is contained in a letter addressed to Mr. Mensah Thompson, the Executive Director of ASEPA, and says that while the “Petitioner fails to meet the threshold of proffering sufficiently strong evidence in support of his allegations”, he also “fails to provide any evidence at all, in support of the spurious allegations made against the Chief Justice.”
Following allegations by a Kumasi-based lawyer Kwasi Afrifa, that a former client of his had alleged a demand of $5 million by the Chief Justice, Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah to influence a case in his (client’s) favour, ASEPA petitioned President Akufo-Addo on July 13, 2021, to initiate impeachment proceedings to remove the Chief Justice.
Afrifa’s allegation, among several others, was contained in a response dated July 8, 2021 to the General Legal Council to counter a petition by his aggrieved ex-client in which the latter demanded money he claimed to have given Afrifa to procure him a favourable verdict in a court case.
The Chief Justice denied the allegation in a letter of July 12, 2021, signed by the Judicial Secretary which also indicated that the CIJ had reported the matter to the police CID for investigation.
Said President Akufo-Addo in his determination of the issues, which are copied to the Vice President, the Chairperson of the Council of State, and the Chief of Staff:
“In discharging my duty enjoined by the combined effect of article 146 (3), (4) and (6) of the Constitution, and as held by the Supreme Court in Agyei-Twum v. Attorney- General and Another (supra), I will confine myself solely to assessing whether, assuming the allegations of the Petitioner as expressed in the petition were factually accurate, a presumption of misbehaviour, as stated, has been established against the Chief Justice to warrant his removal from office.
“It is observed that the petition is not anchored on any allegation made directly or emanating from the Petitioner itself. The Petitioner relies on allegations made by a certain lawyer, Mr. Kwasi Afrifa, in his response to a complaint of misconduct made against him pending at the General Legal Council, wherein the said lawyer also makes allegations against the Chief Justice based on what he alleges another person (his former client) told him. The Petitioner, thus, reproduces third hand or fourth hand hearsay as the basis for seeking to trigger the serious process for the removal of a Chief Justice of the Republic from office. It is correct to say that the Petitioner does not possess personal knowledge of any of the matters that the Petitioner advances as the foundation for the petition.
“The foregoing observation makes the resolution of the fundamental issue for determination in the assessment of whether a prima facie case has been established against the Chief Justice uncontroversial.
“The Petitioner does not attach any further evidence to his petition, beyond Exhibits A and B. Thus, Exhibits A and B must be treated as sufficient and cogent evidence capable of establishing a case against the Chief Justice, which case may only be rebutted by evidence from the opposing side.
“Exhibit A is Mr. Kwasi Afrifa’s response, dated 8th July, 2021, to a petition to the General Legal Council against him, by his client, Ogyeedom Obranu Kwesi Atta VI. In this response, Mr. Afrifa recounts his relationship with Ogyeedom Obranu Kwesi Atta VI and how he came to be his lawyer, and then alleges that his client had informed him that the Chief Justice had demanded a bribe of $5million in order that his client wins his case. The relevant paragraphs of Exhibit A read:
“At the end of July 2020, the Petitioner informed me that friends of his who were highly connected politically had taken him to see the Chief Justice who had agreed to help him win his case on condition that he drops my goodself as the Lawyer handling the case for him to engage Akoto Ampaw Esq in my stead.
“He further informed me that the Chief Justice had demanded a bribe of USD$5,000,000.00 for a successful outcome to his case and that he had already paid USD$500,000.00 to the Chief Justice. He further indicated that he was hard-pressed to raise the remainder of the USD$5,000,000.00 and so I should refund some of the GHS300,000.00 paid to me as fees because he had in line with the advice of the Chief Justice, engaged Akoto Ampaw Esq as Solicitor to continue the case before the Supreme Court.
“He said he wanted the payment in dollars because he was raising the remainder of the money to be paid to the Chief Justice, and that currency was his currency of choice.
“Indeed he told me that his own investigation which he caused personnel at BNI to conduct shows that the Chief Justice was in the process of acquiring several properties at a posh residential area in Kumasi and therefore needed the money urgently. I told him that I was simply not interested in his dealings with politicians and persons wielding power.
“Exhibit B is a request by the Judicial Secretary to the Ghana Police Service to investigate the allegations of bribery levelled against the Chief Justice. In the request, the Judicial Secretary asserts that the Chief Justice does not know the lawyer’s client and has never met him. The request further refutes all the allegations made against the Chief Justice and states that the Chief Justice was in fact the only judge on a panel, who dissented in an application at the instance of Mr. Afrifa’s client in favour of the opposing side.
“The Petitioner relies solely on this response by Mr. Afrifa in Exhibit A as the basis for invoking article 146 of the Constitution. Not only does Exhibit A woefully miss the mark as the requisite standard of evidence required to establish a prima facie case against the Chief Justice, it also does not base the allegations stated therein on any evidence. Mr. Afrifa, in Exhibit A, makes several bare allegations without a shred of evidence. In fact, all the allegations he makes in Exhibit A are founded on information he claims to have obtained from his client, Ogyeedom Obranu Kwesi Atta VI.
“Even a cursory review of Exhibit A would reveal that the allegations are all unsubstantiated – Mr. Afrifa consistently repeats that he was informed by his client before each of the impugned statements he makes against the Chief Justice. The said Mr. Afrifa, on the basis of whose allegations ASEPA files the instant petition, himself does not directly allege bribery against the Chief Justice. He merely alleges before the General Legal Council what he claimed he heard from his client. It goes without saying that the petition is not founded on any fact at all known to the Petitioner or to anybody that the Petitioner knows. The Petitioner is clearly unable to verify any of the allegations contained in Exhibit A. Thus, it is curious, at best, that the Petitioner is inviting me to commence proceedings to remove the Chief Justice, based on information that the Petitioner does not have knowledge of and is relying on from another person (Kwasi Afrifa), who is also allegedly relying purely on information he received from yet another person (Ogyeedom Obranu Kwesi Atta VI).
“As indicated already, the Petitioner itself does not make any allegation of bribery or any form of misconduct against the Chief Justice. A careful examination of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition, which contain the most material allegations by the Petitioner, will disclose that, even if same are proven, they will only have the effect of showing that a lawyer has made an allegation that another person had earlier on intimated to him that the Chief Justice had demanded a bribe from that other person. This allegation by ASEPA, assuming same to be true, is conjectural, speculative and provides nothing of substance to assist in proceedings under article 146 of the Constitution.
“The Petitioner fails to meet the threshold of proffering sufficiently strong evidence in support of his allegations for the opposing side to be called to answer to it. In actual fact, the Petitioner fails to provide any evidence at all, in support of the spurious allegations made against the Chief Justice. It does not attempt to substantiate any of the claims in any form. It merely states that, on the basis of Exhibits A and B, he is entitled to invoke article 146 of the Constitution to commence proceedings to remove the Chief Justice on the grounds of alleged stated misbehaviour, which are not substantiated in any form at all.
“Furthermore, it is instructive to note that Exhibit B does not contain any evidence of the allegations in Exhibit A. It rather hurts the Petitioner’s case, as it refutes each and every allegation made against the Chief Justice.
“Applying my mind to the demands of the task before me, I have no hesitation in finding that the Petitioner’s complaint does not disclose a prima facie case for further action to be taken under article 146 (6) of the Constitution.”
