His Excellency, President John Dramani Mahama, has reaffirmed his commitment to due process in the matter concerning the suspended Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo, stating that any actions will be based solely on the findings of the five-member committee tasked with investigating the matter.
Describing the case as one of the most challenging governance issues in his administration so far, the president noted that the committee, chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, now has full responsibility to deliver its report.
“Based on that (the findings), whatever the consequential issues are will be dealt with,” he stated, assuring that the government will not interfere with the work of the committee.
He mentioned that the council has played its role in the matter and awaits the findings of the 5-member committee hearing the petitions, which is chaired by Supreme Court judge, Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang.
“On the issue of governance, we have had a difficult issue with regard the suspension of the Chief Justice. Of course, the Council of State was involved in a part of that process.
“And so, we have done our part. The rest is left with the committee that was set up to come out with whatever its findings are,” he said.
Meanwhile, Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, has in her fact of case noted that her suspension by President Mahama was carried out arbitrarily and capriciously.
Justice Torkornoo was suspended on Tuesday, April 22, by President John Dramani Mahama following the establishment of a prima facie case based on separate petitions calling for her removal.
The action was in accordance with Article 146(6) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution and comes after consultations with the Council of State.
However, the Chief Justice in her fact of case noted that the president’s purported prima facie determination contained no reasons or justification and was entirely devoid of the elements of judicial or quasi-judicial reasoning expected under the Constitution.
“It failed to meet the standard of a judicious and objective assessment and, as such, is arbitrary, capricious, and constitutionally infirm,” the statement added.
The Chief Justice seeks several reliefs in her statement of case.
They are “a declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 17(1) and (2), 19(13) and (14), 146(7) and (8), 281(1) and 295(1) of the Constitution, a Chief Justice has the right to a public hearing in proceedings before a committee appointed by the President to inquire into a petition presented for the removal of the Chief Justice.
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 17(1) and (2), 19[13) and (14),23, 146(7) and (8), 281(1) and 295(1) of the Constitution, the right of a Chief Justice to a public hearing and allthe incidents of a fair hearing may only be excluded in the interest of public morality, public safety, or public order.
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 17(1) and (2), 19(13) and (14), 23, 146(7) and (8), 281(1) and 295(1) of the Constitution, a Chief Justice who is called upon to participate in a hearing conducted by a committee constituted under article 146(6) tom inquire into the merits of a petition seeking the removal from office of the Chief Justice can waive the privilege of “in camera proceedings.
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 19(13), 23, 146(1), (2), (4) and (6) a and 296 of the Constitution, a determination of prima facie case in respect of a petition for the removal of a Chief Justice or a Justice of the Superior Court of Judicature is a quasi-judicial process requiring a judicious evaluation, culminating in a reasoned decision.
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 19(13), 23, 146/1), (2), (4)and(6) and 296 ofthe Constitution, the purported prima facie finding in respect of three petitions presented for the removal of the Chief Justice and served on the Plaintiff by a letter dated 22nd April, 2025, does not amount to a proper determination of a prima facie case and is therefore null, void and of noeffect;
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 19(13), 23, 146(1),(2),(4) and (6) and 296 ofthe Constitution, the purported prima facie finding in respect of three petitions presented for the removal of the Chief Justice and served on the Plaintiff by a letter dated 22ad April, 2025, does not amount to a proper determination of a prima facie case and is therefore nul, void and of no effect;
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 19(13), 23, 146(1), (2), (4) and (6) and 296 of the Constitution, the purported finding by the President that a prima facie case has been made against the Plaintiffand served on the President by a letter dated 22nd April, 2025, was arbitrary, capricious, in violation of the right of the Plaintiff to a fair trial, and therefore unconstitutional, void and of no effect;
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 146(1), (2), (4), 125(3) and (4), 127(1) and (2) and 296 of the Constitution, the purported determination by the President that a prima facie case has been established against the Plaintiff as conveyed in the letter dated 22nd April 2025, together with the warrant of suspension of the Plaintif, constitute an unjustified attempt to remove the Plaintiff as Head of Ghana’s Judiciary and thus, an undue infringement on the independence of the Judiciary;
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of article 146(6) and (7) of the Constitution,the failure to serve the Plaintiffwith a judicious determination of a prima facie case before appointing a committee to purportedly inquire into the petitions for the removal of the Plaintiff as Chief Justice constitutes a violation of the Plaintiffs right to substantive administrative justice and fair hearing, rendering the entire proceedings initiated null and void;
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of article 146(6) and (7) and 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution, the 2nd defendant, Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, is not qualified to be a chairman or member of the committee set up by the President to inquire into the petions against the Plaintif on account of having adjudicated and given various rulings in favour of one of the petitioners, Daniel Ofori in actions fled in the Supreme Court.
“An order prohibiting the 2nd defendant, Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, from presiding as Chairman of the commitee or participating in the proceedings of the committee set up to inquire into the petitions against the Plaintiff,
“An order prohibiting the 3rd defendant, Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, from siting as a member of or participating in the proceedings of the committee set up to inquire into the petitions against the Plaintif.
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 23, 127(1) and (2), 146/(6) and (7) and 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution, the appointment of the 3rd defendant, Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, as a member of the commitee set up by the President to inquire into the petitions against the Plaintiff, at a time when he had already sat as a member of a panel of the Supreme Court constituted uander article 128(2) of the Constitution to hear an application for interlocutory injunction fled by a Ghanaian citizen challenging the “article 146 proceedings” initiated against the Plaintif, violates the independence of the Judiciary;
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 146(1), (2), (4), 23 and 296 of the Constitution and sections 1, 2, and 4 of the Oaths Act, 1972,the 4h, 5th and 6ih defendants are not qualified to undertake the functions entrusted on them as members of the committee set up by the President to inquire into the petitions against the Plaintiff.
“An order restraining the commite set up by the President to inquire into the three petitions against the Chief Justice composed of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants from proceeding to carry out the terms of reference of the commitee set up under article 146(6) as laid out in the letter dated 22nd April, 2025 and any other order(s) as to this Honourable Court may seem meet”.
CJ TORKORNOO V. AG -STATEMENT OF CASEDownload
The suspended Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, has refuted the claims outlined in petitions calling for her removal. She has described them as baseless and untrue, adding that she has evidence to prove her innocence.
Addressing the press on Wednesday, June 25, she noted that the ongoing proceedings set a dangerous precedent for judges in the country, adding that it violates CI 47.
“The clear danger is that in light of flagrant violation of CI 47, the very rules the Committee claims to be using, and the darkness of the current proceedings being held in camera, my lawyers and I can come to the end of proceedings; the evidence will show that every allegation in the Petitions that were given to me by the President on 27th March 2025 is unfounded and untrue.”
She raised concerns about transparency concerning the venue for the hearings being conducted.
“It is clear that the choice of venue, against the background of the secrecy of proceedings, was intended to intimidate me and to prevent any citizen of Ghana from knowing how the proceedings are being conducted,” she added.
Justice Gertrude Torkornoo reiterated allegations of unconstitutionality with regard to the process of her removal, as well as infringement of her rights during the hearing by the committee set up by the president.
She expressed her displeasure over the use of the Adu Lodge during hearings as well as the alleged refusal of the committee to give her copies of the petitions presented to them by the President.
“There has never been a hearing for the removal of the Chief Justice. One would have therefore hoped that if such a process becomes necessary, it will provide good guidance and precedent for nation building.
Unfortunately, every step of the removal process being undertaken against me is being done in a manner that breaks every rule on how justice is delivered in our country
This is why I find the need to draw the nation’s attention to the serious violations of the constitution and law in the process and the danger it holds for the development of the nation’s democracy.”
Background
On May 21, Justice Torkornoo filed an injunction application, which, among other things, questioned the constitutionality of the committee’s formation and the legality of her suspension announced in April.
The five-member committee includes Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang—Supreme Court Justice (Chairman), Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu—Supreme Court Justice, Daniel Yaw Domelevo—Former Auditor-General Major Flora Bazwaanura Dalugo, Ghana Armed Forces Representative Prof. James Sefah Dzisah, and Associate Professor at the University of Ghana.Justice Torkornoo requested the apex court to bar Gabriel Scott Pwamang and Samuel Adib-Asiedu from sitting on the case, citing a conflict of interest.
She again argued that Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu also served as a Supreme Court panel member who presided over a related injunction application.
The suspended Chief Justice also raised questions about the eligibility of the three remaining committee members, Daniel Yao Domelovo, Major Flora Bazwaanura Dalugo, and Prof. James Sefah Dzisah, under Articles 146 (1), (2), (4), 23, and 296 of the Constitution and sections of the Oaths Act, 1972.Article 23—This article guarantees administrative justice, stating that all administrative bodies and officials must act fairly and reasonably and comply with the law.
Article 296—This provision regulates the exercise of discretionary power by public officials, requiring them to act fairly, transparently, and without bias. It prevents arbitrary decision-making and ensures that discretion is exercised within legal limits.
Oaths Act, 1972—This law governs the oaths of office taken by public officials, ensuring they uphold their duties with integrity.
The Attorney-General, in response to Madam Torkonoo’s interlocutory injunction, also filed an affidavit on May 26, stating that there is no basis in law for the two Supreme Court judges to be restrained from participating in the petition probe.
The Supreme Court on May 28 dismissed a supplementary affidavit filed on May 26, where the suspended Chief Justice made allegations of rights abuse by the committee.
Justice Torkonoo alleged she was subjected to mental torture at the hearing. According to her, upon her arrival at the venue set for her hearing, she was made to go through a body search, her phones and laptops were collected, and her spouse and children were denied access to the room.
According to the apex court, the events referenced happened before the committee investigated the petitions for her removal — proceedings that, by law, are expected to be held in camera.
Making a case for the chair of the committee, Justice Pwamang, argued that his participation in cases put before the courts by one of the petitioners cannot constitute evidence of bias.
Regarding Justice Samuel Adibu Asiedu, the Attorney-General indicated that he did not participate in the injunction hearing and can therefore not be barred.
The Attorney-General further noted that members of the committee have all taken the necessary oath of office, contrary to claims by the Chief Justice.
So far, the Supreme Court has dismissed four suits filed against the petitions seeking the removal of the Chief Justice.
Justice Torkornoo was appointed as Ghana’s 15th Chief Justice in June 2023, succeeding Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah. Her appointment marked her as the third woman to serve in the role in Ghana’s history.
