A. The GBA claims that the Chief Justice’s suspension is unconstitutional because no published regulation governs the President’s discretion under Article 296(c).

Here’s why that claim fails:

1. Supreme Court Already Decided This:

In Ransford France v. Electoral Commission (2012), the Supreme Court unanimously held that not every discretionary act requires prior published regulations.

• Read also: CJ suspension: ‘Where are the published regulations?’ – GBA challenges Mahama

2. Literal Reading Rejected:

Justice Date-Bah warned that a literal interpretation of Article 296(c) would cause a “nuclear melt-down” of government—crippling normal administration.

3. Targeted Scope of Article 296(c):

The Court ruled that Article 296(c) applies only to quasi-judicial situations, not to administrative acts like suspending an official pending investigation. By quasi-judicial, the Court clarified that it involves adjudication.

4. Living Constitution Approach:

Justice Atuguba emphasized that the Constitution must be interpreted dynamically to promote governance, not obstruct it with technicalities.

5. Absence of Regulations ≠ Automatic Unconstitutionality:

A missing regulation does not invalidate a discretionary act unless the act itself is arbitrary, biased, or violates due process (Articles 296(a) and (b)).

6. GBA Offers No Evidence of Bias or Unfairness:

The GBA merely points to the absence of regulations, without proving that the suspension was unfair, arbitrary, or prejudiced.

7. Ignoring Precedent is Dangerous:

The GBA’s position ignores the Ransford France precedent and risks spreading legal confusion rather than defending the rule of law.

8. Legal Certainty Matters:

If we follow the GBA’s logic, thousands of lawful discretionary acts since 1969 would collapse. That is not rule of law—it is chaos.

9. GOGO supports Scrutiny—But It Must Be Grounded in Law:

Criticism of executive action must be rooted in binding precedent, not political expediency or selective readings of the Constitution.

10. Conclusion:

The Chief Justice’s suspension remains constitutional. The GBA’s call for revocation lacks legal merit and risks politicizing the judiciary itself.

B. GBA calls for an end to prejudicial commentary:

1. The GBA, in calling for an end to prejudicial commentary, has issued one of the most prejudicial declarations yet.

2. By flatly declaring the Chief Justice’s suspension unconstitutional—without legal basis, without reference to binding precedent, and while the Article 146 process is still underway—the GBA does exactly what it warns others not to do: it passes judgment prematurely.

3. If the Bar wants to defend due process, it must first practice it.

It cannot condemn prejudgment with one hand and dispense it with the other.

4. Let the GBA heed its own message.

Da Yie!