-BY Nadia Ntiamoah
The Chief Justice, Her Ladyship Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, has formally responded to a petition submitted by legal practitioner ACP Ayamga Yakubu Akolgo Esq., seeking her removal from office.
The petition, dated April 4, 2025, and addressed to the President at Jubilee House, invokes Article 146(1) of the 1992 Constitution, which provides for the removal of superior court judges for stated misbehaviour or incompetence.
In a detailed statement, the Chief Justice denied the claims, describing the petition as lacking merit and a misunderstanding of judicial processes.
Background
Akolgo’s complaint stems from events during a Supreme Court hearing on November 14, 2023, in which he alleges that Chief Justice Torkornoo acted discourteously and that his removal from the courtroom was unjustified.
According to him, “the media reported that he was arrested, detained and released for shouting at the court,” a claim he contests as inaccurate.
Akolgo said he had to “publish a rejoinder in the media to refute false reportage.”
He further alleged that the Chief Justice influenced the content of a court search report, which he said contained false information, and claimed that “the court records did not capture all events that occurred in court.”
Citing Section 16 of the Judicial Service Act, 1960 (CA 10), Akolgo argued that the Chief Justice’s actions constituted misconduct.
However, the Chief Justice corrected this, stating, “Respectfully, this citation is wrong because the current applicable law is Judicial Service Act 2020, Act 1057.”
Response from the Chief Justice
Justice Torkornoo, while expressing regret if the petitioner had a negative experience in court, firmly rejected the accusations.
“I do not hesitate to apologize… if any court user… had a bad experience in court while I was presiding,” she wrote. However, she maintained, “The Petition does not provide any element of misbehavior or incompetence that can lead to removal… under the 1992 Constitution.”
She emphasized that the decisions made during the court session were not hers alone, clarifying, “In the conduct of the work of the Supreme Court, the presiding Judge, whether the Chief Justice or another senior member of the court, is not the court.
Any directions given… are the directions of the court, and not the directions of any individual judge.”
Citing Article 127(3) of the Constitution, she noted that judicial officers are not liable for actions taken in the exercise of judicial power.
“Because of the weight of article 127(3), it is respectfully submitted that neither the Chief Justice nor any of the Justices… may be singled out to be sanctioned for court proceedings,” she stated.
On Court Records and Search Reports
Responding to claims about court records and search report inaccuracies, Justice Torkornoo explained the court’s procedures.
“The manuscript records… are summaries… and nothing more,” she noted, adding that “no Judge manages or administers the electronically captured records of the court… [this] duty is confined to the registry.”
She also clarified that judges are not involved in producing search report responses, denying any role in the alleged false statements.
Media Evidence and Conclusion
In addressing media reports referenced by the petitioner, the Chief Justice attached excerpts from the Law Platform portal, which she claims contradict Akolgo’s narrative.
“I attach hereto as AA (1) pages from this evidence… which contradicts his presentations,” she wrote.
Concluding her response to the President, Justice Torkornoo stated unequivocally, “The matters presented in this Petition are unable to lead to a prima facie finding of liability for removal of the Chief Justice.”
