The Ghana Bar Association has dismissed as ignorance suggestions that it is going to court to get the appointment of Justices Yaw Apau and Gabriel Pwamang nullified.

Spokesperson for the Bar, Tony Forson told Joy FM’s Top Story Thursday the decision by the National Council of the Bar was to seek clarification on a provision in the constitution bordering on the appointment of judges to the Superior Courts.

The National Council comprises the ten regional presidents and secretaries as well as former presidents of the GBA.

The Bar together with three top lawyers filed a suit at the Supreme Court on Tuesday asking for four reliefs.

The plaintiffs argued that the appointing authority may have breached Article 144 clause 2 which stipulates that, “The other Supreme Court Justices shall be appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Judicial Council, in consultation with the Council of State and with the approval of Parliament."

Their action is grounded on the fact that three persons were recommended for appointment to the Supreme Court but one was left out. Also, out of seven justices for the Appeals Court, the president appointed five.

Many have interpreted the reliefs as seeking the nullification of the appointment of Justices Yaw Apau and Gabriel Pwamang. But Mr. Forson insisted that the Bar’s action is “not retrospective but prospective” and  therefore has no bearing on the appointments.

“Nowhere in the petition did we say the appointment is null and void,” he maintained, stressing that the reliefs were not targeted at President Mahama.

Mr. Forson asserted: “We are not quibbling with the current appointment, we are asking for a declaration by the Supreme Court that any appointment, going forward, which does not conform to, 'on the advice of' as declared by the Supreme Court will be null and void.”

If the plaintiffs wanted the court to quash the appointment, they would have applied for an injunction on the processing of appointing and swearing in of Justices Apau and Pwamang.

“We are saying that if we wanted a fight, we are at least savvy enough to know the usefulness of injunction, this action came after the swearing in because it is deliberate.”

Mr. Forson also mentioned that the action is supposed to strengthen the institution of the Judicial Council.

The four reliefs the plaintiffs are praying for are:

1. A declaration that upon true and proper construction of Article 114 clauses (2) and (3) of the 1992 Constitution, all appointments made by the President of the Republic of Ghana to the Superior Courts are valid only to the extent that such appointments are made in strict accordance with the advice of the 2nd defendant herein, the Judicial Council.

2. A declaration that upon true and proper interpretation of Article 144 (2) and (3) of the 1992 Constitution, a constitutional trust is created in the 2nd defendant herein, the Judicial Council, to make nominations of the person(s) best qualified to serve as Justices of the Superior Courts of Judicature and the 2nd Defendant is required to ensure that such nominations are actually submitted by the President to Parliament for approval after due consultations with the Council of State

3. A declaration that accordingly, upon true and proper construction of the Article 144 clauses (2) and (3) of the 1992 Constitution the Judicial Council of the Republic of Ghana has a constitutional obligation to specifically advise the President of the Republic of Ghana as to which specific person(s) is/are suitable for appointment to serve as Justice(s) of the Superior Courts of Judicature in accordance with which advice the President is mandatorily required to exercise his powers of appointment.

4. A declaration that an appointment or non-appointment by the President of the Republic of Ghana of a Justice of the Superior Court in a manner out of accord with the advice of the Judicial Council is unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect.