It’s unethical and dishonourable – Martin Amidu blasts Godfred Dame over CJ Petition

Read Time: 2 minutes

Former Special Prosecutor Martin Amidu has taken a strong swipe at former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame, whom he refers to as “Telephone Man,” over comments suggesting that proceedings regarding the petition to remove Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo should be held publicly.

In a sharply worded open letter, Amidu criticized Dame’s suggestion as “unethical and dishonourable,” accusing him of attempting to politicize a process that is clearly outlined by Ghana’s Constitution. He argued that the provisions of Article 146(8) of the 1992 Constitution leave no room for ambiguity—such proceedings are to be conducted strictly in camera (behind closed doors).

“It is unethical and dishonourable… to give the impression that someone or a group of persons are calling for a public hearing for political purposes when the Constitution clearly mandates otherwise,” Amidu wrote.

He noted that any committee appointed under Article 146(6) and (7) to investigate such petitions is bound by law to conduct its inquiry privately. Therefore, he believes that Dame’s call for transparency in the form of a public hearing not only misleads the public but also undermines constitutional integrity.

Amidu argued that Dame’s insistence on public scrutiny disregards the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 146 in previous rulings.

The Constitution, he emphasized, was intentionally crafted to ensure that such sensitive proceedings remain confidential—to protect the reputation of the accused, maintain the integrity of the judiciary, and shield potential witnesses.

Citing reports by Citi News, Amidu referenced Dame’s comment:

“It cannot be a secret. There ought to be light on the proceeding because she has already been damaged in the public domain.”

To this, Amidu responded pointedly, accusing Dame of acting as though he is “wiser than the framers of the Constitution” by attempting to override an express constitutional mandate for personal or political advantage.

He drew historical parallels from the 1969, 1979, and 1992 Constitutions of Ghana to show that the framers deliberately chose to hold such hearings in camera—except in cases involving the President, where Parliament can decide otherwise in the interest of national security.

Amidu concluded by cautioning against what he calls “judicial activism” that seeks to tamper with the clear intentions of Ghana’s Constitution.

For him, the call for public hearings in the current context is not about fairness or transparency, but a calculated political move that threatens the sanctity of the constitutional process.

“The injunction that proceedings under Article 146 must be held in camera was purposeful—not an omission to be filled by judicial activism,” he stated.

Source: MyNewsGh.com