Bold claim: No prima facie case found against Justice Kulendi.
President John Dramani Mahama has officially ended a petition that sought to investigate Supreme Court Justice Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, citing a lack of legal basis. The decision came after a review by the Chief Justice, who determined that the complaint did not establish a prima facie case against the judge.
The petition alleged that Justice Kulendi improperly interfered in the prominent ambulance scandal trial involving his cousin, Richard Jakpa, and Dr Cassiel Ato Forson, who is the current Finance Minister. It argued that such conduct violated judicial ethics and undermined public confidence in the judiciary.
Following constitutional protocol under Article 146, President Mahama referred the petition to the Chief Justice for assessment. In a decisive reply, the Chief Justice concluded that the allegations did not meet the legal threshold to merit a formal investigation.
Subsequently, the President conveyed this final verdict to the petitioner, effectively closing the matter. This ruling means Justice Kulendi will not face formal disciplinary action, ending a chapter that had sparked intense debate about judicial conduct.
The President’s decision was announced by Felix Kwakye Ofosu, the Minister of State in charge of Government Communications.
“This development brings clarity to the matter, confirming that the allegations against the Supreme Court judge will not proceed to formal investigation or action, as no sufficient legal basis was established,” Mr. Ofosu stated.
Appointment details: Justice Kulendi was sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice on May 26, 2020, alongside Professor Henrietta J. A. N. Mensa-Bonsu, by then-President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo. Their appointments followed vetting by Parliament’s Appointments Committee on May 11 and 12, 2020, and parliamentary approval on May 20, 2020.
Background context: On October 2, Daniel Marfo Ofori-Atta petitioned President Mahama for the removal of Justice Kulendi, following a prior petition to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service. The petitions called for investigations into Justice Kulendi and his cousin, Richard Jakpa, over alleged attempts to interfere with the administration of justice. The allegations trace to the high-profile Republic vs Cassiel Ato Forson & 2 others trial, in which Jakpa—now the Director of Operations at the National Security Secretariat—was the third accused.
Ofori-Atta argued that Justice Kulendi attempted to obstruct justice in breach of the code of conduct expected of a Supreme Court judge, contending that such conduct amounted to stated misbehaviour and rendered him unfit for office.
But here's where it gets controversial: the authorities found no sufficient legal basis to proceed, effectively exonerating the judge and reinforcing the current understanding of judicial ethics in this case. And this is the part most people miss: the threshold for initiating formal discipline requires more than compelling accusations; it demands a clear, legally actionable prima facie case that withstands constitutional scrutiny.
Controversy and questions for readers: Do you think the standard applied was appropriately high, or should investigations proceed on the strength of public concerns even when prima facie proof is not met? Should there be a different mechanism to address perceived judicial impropriety without undermining due process? Share your perspective in the comments.
