BY Daniel Bampoe
A fresh constitutional dispute has been placed before the Supreme Court of Ghana, with a private citizen challenging what he describes as the failure of the President to properly reconstitute the Council of State following the resignation of former Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo.
The action was initiated by Samuel Bryan Buabeng, who has invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution and Rule 45 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16).
The Attorney-General has been named as the defendant. The writ, filed in Accra and dated September 2, 2026, seeks constitutional interpretation and consequential orders concerning the composition of the Council of State.
At the centre of the case is Article 89 of the 1992 Constitution, which establishes the Council of State and sets out who should constitute the advisory body to the President. The plaintiff’s case is that the constitutional requirements governing the Council’s composition become particularly important whenever a person occupying one of the specified positions ceases to be a member through resignation, incapacity or removal.
According to the writ, Samuel Buabeng is asking the Supreme Court to declare that the Council of State was, at the material time, not properly constituted during the vacancy created by the departure of a person whose membership falls within Article 89(2)(a), (b) or (c). He is further seeking a declaration that the Council remained improperly constituted following the resignation, incapacity or removal of such a member.
A major component of the legal challenge concerns the position of a former Chief Justice on the Council of State. The plaintiff specifically argues that, under Articles 89(1) and 89(2)(a)(i), the Council of State was not properly constituted following the resignation, incapacity or removal from office of a former Chief Justice who had served as a member of the Council.
The case specifically identifies former Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo as the person whose departure has triggered the constitutional question. The writ states that Akuffo resigned from the Council of State in September 2025, and asks the court to determine whether the President was constitutionally required to replace her with another former Chief Justice.
The plaintiff’s interpretation of the Constitution goes beyond merely requiring a replacement. He is asking the Supreme Court to declare that the President has a constitutional obligation to appoint another former Chief Justice immediately after a former Chief Justice who has been appointed as a member of the Council of State resigns, becomes incapacitated or is removed from office.
The writ further alleges that the President acted unconstitutionally by refusing or failing to appoint a former Chief Justice to replace Sophia Akuffo. Buabeng is therefore asking the Supreme Court to compel the constitutional process rather than leave the seat vacant.
The relief being sought is particularly significant because the plaintiff wants the court to direct the President, pursuant to Article 89(2)(a)(ii), to consult Parliament within 14 days and, following that consultation, appoint a former Chief Justice to the Council of State within 48 hours.
In effect, the suit places before the apex court a question that goes to the relationship between constitutional vacancies and the continued validity of the Council of State’s composition.
The Supreme Court will be asked to determine whether the absence of the former Chief Justice contemplated under Article 89 affects the constitutional status of the Council and whether the President has a mandatory duty to fill the position within a particular constitutional framework.
The dispute comes against the broader constitutional role of the Council of State as an advisory institution to the President. Its membership is prescribed by the Constitution rather than being left entirely to presidential discretion.
Consequently, any disagreement over whether the body has been properly constituted can potentially raise questions about the validity of the constitutional processes through which it performs its advisory functions.
The plaintiff has brought the action in his capacity as a citizen of Ghana, rather than identifying himself as a member of the Council of State or as a person personally occupying the disputed position.
The Attorney-General has been directed, under the writ, to file the defendant’s Statement of Case within 14 days after service, inclusive of the day of service.
