New ministers suit: Chief Justice defends decision to expedite Dafeamekpor’s application
Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo has justified her decision to expedite the hearing of a case filed by South Dayi MP Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor.
The case filed by the legislator, seeking to restrain Parliament from approving new ministers, was heard on March 27, raising questions about bias.
According to the NDC, the Supreme Court has not displayed impartiality in arranging and adjudicating “political cases” brought before it.
This critique follows the court’s decision to prioritize a hearing on a writ filed by Rockson-Nelson Etse K. Dafeamekpor over another application filed by broadcast journalist Richard Dela Sky.
Despite facing criticism from the NDC and other party faithful, the Chief Justice justified her actions during an address to members of the Judicial Press Corps on Thursday, April 4, 2024.
She explained that the Attorney General’s request to prioritize the case was supported by cogent reasons, including the imminent Easter break and the readiness of all parties involved in the hearing.
“In this particular case, as soon as the case was filed the Attorney General filed his response. He filed his affidavit in opposition. So the case was right for hearing. We were going to go on Easter break and the Attorney General wrote and said that this is a matter of governance so could the court issue a hearing notice for the case to be heard.
“The court was also going to sit on Wednesday, so hearing notices were issued so that the applicant who filed the case himself and who should be interested in his case would come to court with the two other respondents representing,” she explained.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Dismisses Dafeamekpor’s Application Against Approval Of New Ministers
She added that with all parties duly served and the respondents having filed their affidavits in opposition, there was no impediment to proceeding with the hearing.
“The bailiff went and served all of them with hearing notices and when the court sat on that Wednesday, it formed part of our list because hearing notices have been served on everybody and the respondents had filed their affidavit in opposition. At least the Attorney General had.
“So when the case was called the affidavit of service was on the docket. We knew that the applicant had been served, the speaker had been served, the Attorney General had been served, the speaker’s lawyer was in court, the Attorney General was in court, so nothing should stop the hearing,” she stated.
Her defence sought to dispel accusations of bias, stressing the court’s commitment to upholding the principles of fairness and due process.