By Nadia Ntiamoah
A civil society group, the Centre for Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems (CCCES), has initiated legal proceedings at the Supreme Court in an attempt to block the removal of Ghana’s suspended Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo.
The group identified as James Kwabena Bomfeh (Kabila), Abeeku Essuman Johnson, a lecturer at UG Political Science Department), Doris Osei, and Susan Adu Dankwah argue that the process undertaken by President John Dramani Mahama to suspend and potentially remove the Chief Justice is unconstitutional and procedurally flawed.
The legal challenge, filed on May 14, 2025, comes amid deepening political tension and public concern over what many observers consider an assault on judicial independence.
The group, CCCES contends that President Mahama’s response to three separate petitions—submitted by private citizen Daniel Ofori, police officer Ayamga Akolgo, and the advocacy group Shining Stars of Ghana—violated core principles of the 1992 Constitution.
Specifically, the suit claims that the President acted in breach of Articles 17(1)–(3), 23, 296, and 146(1)–(4) and (6) of the Constitution, which collectively safeguard principles of equality before the law, fairness in administrative action, and due process in judicial removals.
The group is asking the Supreme Court to declare the President’s conduct unlawful and to halt the ongoing inquiry being undertaken by a committee appointed to investigate the Chief Justice by President Mahama.
Background
Chief Justice Torkornoo was suspended on Tuesday, April 22, 2025, after President Mahama declared that a prima facie case had been established against her following an initial review of the petitions.
The move marked the first time in Ghana’s Fourth Republic that a sitting Chief Justice has been suspended, triggering a widespread backlash from legal professionals, opposition politicians, and civil society organizations.
The allegations contained in the petitions remain unpublished, but sources within government circles suggest they relate to supposed instances of conflict of interest and abuse of judicial discretion, particularly in politically sensitive cases.
Critics argue that the suspension came shortly after Chief Justice Torkornoo resisted alleged efforts by the Executive to influence judicial appointments, raising suspicions of political motivation behind the move.
The President subsequently invoked Article 146(6) of the Constitution to form a five-member committee to investigate the allegations.
The committee, chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, was constituted after mandatory consultation with the Council of State.
The panel is expected to sit three times a week and present its findings and recommendations directly to the President.
The committee’s first sitting was scheduled for yesterday, Thursday, May 15, 2025.
Legal and Political Fallout
The CCCES’s suit comes just days after a divided Supreme Court declined to grant an injunction that would have halted the removal process.
On May 6, the court delivered a 3–2 majority ruling rejecting the request for an interim order. Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, along with Justices Yonny Kulendi and Amadu Tanko, formed the majority, while Justices Henrietta Mensa Bonsu and Ernest Gaewu dissented.
While the court’s full reasoning has yet to be published—scheduled for May 21, 2025—the decision did little to calm public outrage.
On May 5, thousands of protesters led by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and joined by various opposition parties and civil society groups marched through the streets of Accra calling for the reinstatement of Justice Torkornoo.
Government’s Position
Despite the growing backlash, the government has defended the suspension and the investigative process.
The Minister for Government Communications, Felix Kwakye Ofosu issued a statement on May 14, assuring the public that the President’s actions were entirely within the bounds of the Constitution.
He stressed that the petitions were filed by the law and that the committee’s work would be impartial and professional.
However, legal scholars and political analysts continue to raise concerns. Several constitutional experts argue that even if the procedure followed appears to align with Article 146, the broader context—particularly the political climate and lack of transparency—could undermine the legitimacy of the process.
What Lies Ahead
The CCCES’s legal challenge now puts the Supreme Court at the center of a constitutional battle with far-reaching implications.
If the Court rules in favor of the civil society group, it could nullify the entire removal process and prompt calls for constitutional reforms to safeguard judicial independence more robustly.
Meanwhile, the Pwamang Committee will continue its work behind closed doors.
