Lawyer and former Member of Parliament (MP) for Asante Akyem North, Andy Appiah-Kubi, has broken ranks with those within his own political circle who have questioned the Chief Justice’s handling of the petitions seeking the removal of Electoral Commission (EC) officials and the Special Prosecutor (SP), describing the process as constitutionally correct and the outcome as deserving of respect.
Speaking on the weekend, Appiah-Kubi said the Chief Justice followed the procedure prescribed by law and that political displeasure with the outcome should not be dressed up as a critique of due process. His remarks stand in deliberate contrast to those of New Patriotic Party (NPP) Communications Director Richard Ahiagbah, who alleged that the timing of the public announcement of the Chief Justice’s determination was a calculated attempt by the Mahama administration to divert attention from the deepening cocoa sector crisis.
Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie determined that there was no prima facie case in multiple petitions seeking the removal of EC Chairperson Jean Adukwei Mensa, her two deputies, Dr Bossman Eric Asare and Samuel Tettey, and Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng. The determination was communicated to President John Dramani Mahama by letter dated January 26, 2026, and made public by Government Communications Minister Felix Kwakye Ofosu on February 18, 2026.
The President had referred a bundle of ten petitions to the Chief Justice on November 25, 2025, in line with Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution and Section 15 of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), giving the Chief Justice 30 days to determine whether a prima facie case existed. The bundle comprised seven petitions targeting the EC leadership and three aimed at the Special Prosecutor.
Legal commentator Richard Nii Armah, while acknowledging the disappointment felt by some petitioners and civil society groups, maintained that the judicial outcome must be respected, adding that the petitioners may have allowed emotional momentum to drive their submissions rather than a rigorous legal case built on verifiable grounds.
The divergence within the NPP over how to respond to the ruling is itself telling. Appiah-Kubi’s willingness to praise the Chief Justice’s conduct, even as party colleagues frame the outcome as politically motivated, reflects the legal fraternity’s general reluctance to conflate institutional process with political result. His position is straightforward: the Constitution provided a mechanism, the Chief Justice applied it, and the outcome should stand on its own legal merits.
For the petitioners, the determination effectively closes the current removal bid unless new and legally sufficient grounds can be established through a fresh submission. The constitutional framework allows for future petitions but sets the same threshold: evidence sufficient to disclose a prima facie case, a bar that the Chief Justice concluded none of the ten petitions presented to him managed to clear.
