One of the reliefs sought in a fresh suit by the suspended CJ is that she has the right to a public hearing and may waive “in camera” privilege.
Article 146(8) clearly mandates that “all proceedings under this article shall be held in camera.” This provision does not provide any discretionary power for any party to opt for an open or public hearing.
In the decisions of His Lordship Justice Paul Uuter Dery v. Tiger Eye P.I. and Others, the court emphasized that the “in camera” requirement is central to preserving the dignity, authority, and independence of the judiciary.
The courts have repeatedly held that expatriating the content of impeachment proceedings to the public domain would defeat the constitutional purpose of confidentiality. Viewing from the legal prism, can we say that the literal interpretation of this provision is incongruous, and that purposive approach is needed?
Is Article 146(8) a right that can be waived? I guess my upcoming comprehensive paper on this particular provision will make some recommendations. But mind you
, PER THE CURRENT INTERBANK RATES, THE DOLLAR IS SELLING AT GH¢10.9555 AND BUYING AT GH¢10.9500.
