In a ceremony held at the Nsawam Medium Security Prison, 71 inmates graduated from a tertiary education programme, with three inmates earning first-class honors.

The programme, a collaborative effort between the Ghana Prisons Service, the University of Cape Coast, and Plan Volta Ghana, aims to provide inmates with academic qualifications and skills to contribute positively to society upon release.

Deputy Minister of the Interior, Hon. Ebenezer Okletey Terlabi congratulated the graduates on their achievement, emphasizing the significance of education in transforming lives.

Hon. Terlabi noted that the programme’s success reflects the Government’s commitment to supporting rehabilitation initiatives that go beyond incarceration.

The Director-General of Prisons, Patience Baffoe-Bonnie Esq. encouraged inmates to take advantage of various training programs, including vocational skills, to enhance their rehabilitation.

She also announced plans to develop strategies for reintegrating inmates into society after serving their sentences.

This initiative demonstrates efforts to prioritise rehabilitation and reintegration, recognising that education and skill development are crucial in reducing recidivism and promoting positive change.

The graduates’ achievement serves as a symbol of hope and resilience, inspiring others to pursue education and personal growth.

Ghana’s 1992 Constitution provides explicit guidelines for removing public officials, such as Superior Court Justices and the Chief Justice, with no room for judicial overreach.

 For Justices other than the Chief Justice, Article 146(3)-(5) mandates that a petition be sent to the President, who refers it to the Chief Justice to assess if a prima facie case exists. If confirmed, a committee investigates and advises the President. The process is straightforward and precise.

In contrast, Article 146(6)-(7) governs the removal of the Chief Justice. Here, the President, consulting the Council of State, forms a committee to investigate a petition and recommend action without any mention of a prima facie case requirement. This distinction is deliberate and clear in the Constitution’s text.

However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Agyei Twum v. Attorney General & Akwetey imposed a prima facie case condition for removing a Chief Justice, a step not supported by the Constitution. 

This judicial addition distorted the framers’ intent, as the original text remains unamended. When the Constitution’s language is unambiguous, courts should not insert new terms under the guise of interpretation; such as the so-called “purposive approach” unless the provision is unclear, which it is not here. 

The framers’ choice to omit a prima facie requirement for the Chief Justice was intentional, not an oversight.

Looking ahead, I urge the Supreme Court, amid current cases and political pressures, to avoid compounding this error. Adding further conditions – like requiring the Chief Justice to respond to a petition before any action – would be another unwarranted rewrite of the Constitution. 

The text does not demand a prima facie case, let alone additional steps. Judicial restraint is essential to preserve clarity and fidelity to the law as written.

Thank you for your attention.  

Kwame Owusu Danso, Esq. 

Africa Law Focus.