If you remove a judge, he must have misbehaved, and the president should not have a hand in it – Charles Owusu Juanah Esq
Charles Owusu Juanah Esq. has pointed out the defense of judicial independence and the sanctity of constitutional procedure.
Juanah emphasized that judges of the superior courts can only be removed for “stated misbehaviour” (or incompetence or incapacity under some constitutions). He argued that the removal power is not a tool to be wielded at the whim of the executive, but rather a last-resort mechanism when a judge’s conduct clearly warrants it.
In his view, the threshold requirement of demonstrated misconduct is not a technicality but a foundational bulwark for the rule of law. Without such a threshold, he warned, any government in power could purge judges simply because they deliver unpopular decisions.
Juanah’s strongest criticism concerned the executive arm’s potential overreach. He warned that if presidents (or executives more broadly) were allowed to influence or control the removal of judges, the judiciary would become politicized and weakened. Judicial officers would risk making decisions with fear of reprisal or removal, undermining the separation of powers.
He underscored that the president should have no hand, direct or indirect, in deciding whether to remove a judge, except in the strictly limited constitutional role (for instance, initiating or approving removal when certain procedures, set out in law, are satisfied). Any attempt by the executive to manipulate the process would contravene the design of an independent judiciary.
He also highlighted that constitutional and legal frameworks generally prescribe rigorous and multi‑layered procedures for removal.
WATCH VIDEO BELOW:
