The Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkonoo, has filed an action at the Supreme Court challenging the legality of proceedings initiated for her removal from office by President John Mahama.
She has raised concerns about the legality and impartiality of the committee’s composition, pointing out that two members, Justices Gabriel Pwamang and Samuel Adibu-Asiedu, had previously adjudicated on related matters involving the petitioners or the constitutional questions now before the Court—circumstances she says disqualify them due to the constitutional requirement of impartiality.
Justice Torkornoo also noteed that several members of the committee had not taken the required oath under Article 156(1) of the Constitution before commencing their work, rendering any proceedings held prior to the oath-taking constitutionally void.
The Chief Justice is seeking redress over what she described as a series of egregious constitutional violations, which she argues undermine the very principle of judicial independence.
According to the facts laid out in her statement of case, the Chief Justice said she was first made aware of the removal petitions not through formal notification, but via a presidential press release issued on March 25, 2025, and disseminated widely by the media.
The press statement disclosed that the President had received three petitions seeking her removal and had commenced consultations with the Council of State under Article 146 of the Constitution.
It is the contention of Justice Torkornoo that she was neither notified of the petitions nor given an opportunity to respond prior to the initiation of such grave constitutional steps, and formally requested copies of the petitions on March 27, which were provided two days later. In her responses, she contested their merit on legal and factual grounds.
However, despite a pending suit by Member of Parliament Vincent Ekow Assafuah, who had sought the intervention of the Supreme Court to halt the process, the President went ahead to declare a prima facie case had been established against the Chief Justice on April 22.
That same day, the Chief Justice was formally informed by letter that a five-member investigative committee had been constituted and that she was suspended pending the inquiry.
She further criticises the lack of transparency in the President’s prima facie determination, which she describes as “arbitrary” and “devoid of judicial reasoning.” The surrounding circumstances—including media leaks, a government-aligned opinion poll calling for her removal, and the general tenor of public discourse—indicate to her a politically motivated effort to remove the head of the Judiciary, a move she argues threatens the constitutional balance of power.
The Chief Justice is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the Constitution, citing violations of due process and judicial independence. Her legal team references landmark cases such as Agyei-Twum v. Attorney-General, Justice Dery v. Tiger Eye P.I., and Ghana Bar Association v. Attorney-General, to support their position that constitutional safeguards for the Judiciary are under siege.
Her case, described as “not merely a procedural objection but a constitutional defence of the independence of the Judiciary,” urges the Supreme Court to see beyond personalities and temporary politics. In a philosophical appeal invoking John Rawls’ “veil of ignorance,” the Chief Justice invites the Court to consider the precedent it sets—not just for this case, but for all future occupants of the bench.
“This moment,” the statement says, “presents a rare and critical opportunity for the Supreme Court to reaffirm Ghana’s commitment to judicial independence and constitutional governance.”
With the sesquicentennial of the Supreme Court Ordinance of 1876 approaching, many legal scholars see this case as a defining moment in Ghana’s constitutional history—one that could either reaffirm or redefine the boundaries of executive power over the Judiciary.
