Veteran journalist and Managing Editor of the Insight Newspaper, Kwesi Pratt Jnr, has delivered a blunt constitutional reading of Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie’s dismissal of the petitions seeking the removal of the Electoral Commission (EC) leadership: the matter is legally closed, the ruling cannot be challenged, and Ghana must accept it.
Speaking on Pan African TV on Friday, February 20, Pratt’s commentary straddled two distinct positions. He affirmed the finality of the Chief Justice’s ruling as a matter of law while simultaneously expressing genuine personal shock at how a petition he described as substantial and meticulously prepared was turned away at the very first constitutional gate.
“It’s lawful. You cannot challenge it on the basis of process or the law. It’s finished,” Pratt declared. “You cannot appeal against the decision of the Chief Justice. Matter is closed.”
His constitutional reading rests on the architecture of Article 146 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, which vests the sole and unreviewable power of prima facie determination in the Chief Justice alone. Once that threshold assessment is made, no court, no panel, and not even the Chief Justice himself can revisit it. “There’s no provision for review. No provision for review by the Chief Justice himself or even by the bench,” Pratt stated, leaving no room for ambiguity about the legal position.
He acknowledged the uncomfortable reality at the heart of the framework: in a country of 35 million people, a decision of this magnitude rests entirely in the hands of one individual. “Only one person out of a population of 35 million is clothed with the authority of deciding whether or not this case should go forward,” he noted, adding that Ghanaians have no choice but to abide by that outcome regardless of how they feel about it.
The background to Pratt’s remarks is a ruling communicated by Chief Justice Baffoe-Bonnie to President John Dramani Mahama in a letter dated January 26, 2026, following the referral of ten petitions to the Chief Justice on November 25, 2025. Seven of those petitions targeted EC Chairperson Jean Mensa and her deputies, Dr Bossman Eric Asare and Samuel Tettey, while three separate petitions sought the removal of Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng. The Chief Justice determined that none of the petitions met the constitutional threshold required to trigger further investigations or proceedings against the named officials.
What made Pratt’s commentary particularly striking was his candid personal reaction to the ruling’s substance. He disclosed that he had personally read one of the petitions and found it thorough and serious, not the kind of document that should, in his assessment, have struggled to clear even the lowest evidentiary bar.
“It’s a 95-page petition. Thorough, really thorough,” he said. “This is the petition which is talking about data breaches and the dangers that the Electoral Commission through its practices subjected citizens to.” He said he was “completely shocked” that the Chief Justice found no prima facie case in a document of that quality, especially since Article 146 does not require full evidentiary proof at this preliminary stage. “If you read Article 146 very closely, at this point of the determination of whether or not there’s a prima facie case, evidence is not required,” Pratt argued.
The election monitoring group Election Watch Ghana had earlier expressed disappointment with the ruling, saying it did not absolve the EC of what the group described as incompetence, bias and lack of transparency.
Pratt, however, drew a clear line between what one might think of the decision and what the law permits. He conceded that the quality of the Chief Justice’s reasoning could be analysed and debated in academic or civic discourse, but stressed that no legal mechanism exists to reverse or overturn it. The only path remaining for those who believe the EC leadership should face scrutiny is to file entirely fresh petitions, a route Pratt noted is open in principle but one whose prospects he viewed with evident scepticism.
