KEY POINTS
- Atuguba accuses NPP of hypocrisy over Chief Justice removal.
- He defends Mahama’s right to implement manifesto promises.
- Payback claims dismissed as baseless and unjustified.
Retired Supreme Court Judge Justice William Atuguba has launched a sharp critique of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) for condemning the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo. He described the party’s stance as hypocritical and without moral basis, pointing to the NPP’s own history of ousting officials under the same constitutional provisions.
In a yet-to-be-aired interview with JoyNews’ Elton Brobbey, Atuguba argued that the opposition party lacks credibility in accusing President John Mahama of political interference.
He reminded Ghanaians that high-profile figures such as former Electoral Commission Chair Charlotte Osei and ex-CHRAJ Commissioner Lauretta Lamptey were removed under identical grounds of “stated misbehaviour” while the NPP was in power.
Political tensions over judicial independence
According to MyJoyOnline, Atuguba’s comments come amid heated political fallout following the Article 146 Committee’s recommendation and Mahama’s decision to remove Chief Justice Torkornoo. Some within the NPP have vowed to reverse the move if the party regains power, even suggesting future reprisals against judicial officials. Atuguba condemned such threats as reckless, saying they show some politicians prioritize raw power over governance.
He dismissed speculation that Mahama acted on a premeditated plan to overhaul the judiciary.
Instead, he defended the right of any political party to implement reforms promised in campaign manifestos, emphasizing that these programs are effectively endorsed by voters at the polls.
Debate over payback claims grows louder
On calls for constitutional amendments to redefine “stated misbehaviour,” Atuguba insisted that the law is already clear and has been applied consistently.
He was equally forceful in rejecting claims that Torkornoo’s ouster amounted to political revenge. “Payback is something that cannot be justified. But if it is justified, where is the payback? Or if it’s a payback, it’s correct payback,” he said.
