THIS PRIMA FACIE PROCESS SEEMS LIKE THE ACTUAL INQUIRY

The provisions in articles 146 (6) & (7) lay down a very straightforward process of how a Chief Justice may be removed from office.

They say that if the President receives a petition for the removal of a Chief Justice, he (the President) must do nothing more than confer with the Council of State to appoint a committee to inquire into the petition and recommend to the President whether or not the Chief Justice must be removed from office. Dasorrrr.

The provisions stipulate the calibre of persons who may be appointed to the committee of inquiry. At least two of them must be highly qualified legal experts – Supreme Court Justices. Meaning a highly competent, and top-notch inquiry is envisaged.

The above is all our Constitution says, and anyone can read the provisions and understand them very clearly, to mean exactly what I have explained in this opinion.

Now look at all the mess some previous Supreme Court Justices have created in one case by introducing confusion into the very simple text just because they did not want one their colleagues to be removed from office.

The mess is now to the extent that the process ongoing now to determine if there is prima facie case in the allegations against our current Honourable Ladyship seems like the actual inquiry of the allegations, and any referral to a committee later may work as an ordinary appeal.

How did we get here?

Thanks for reading.

By: Eric DELANYO Alifo, Esq.

Read also…