By Issah Olegor
Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Sackey Torkornoo has for the first time publicly addressed the ongoing process to remove her from office, strongly challenging its legality, fairness, and transparency.
Speaking at a press conference last Wednesday, June 26, the Chief Justice expressed serious reservations about the five-member committee set up to investigate multiple petitions filed against her.
Chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Pwamang, the committee is probing complaints that have led to a prima facie case being established by President John Dramani Mahama, paving the way for the Chief Justice to be investigated.
But in a bold and detailed statement, Justice Torkornoo questioned the legitimacy of the entire process, suggesting it may be politically motivated and constitutionally flawed.
She posed 15 key questions, which she believes expose the weaknesses, irregularities, and possible ulterior motives behind the ongoing proceedings:
1. “Was Adu Lodge chosen for this inquiry to make me feel insecure?”
– The Chief Justice questioned the venue selected for the committee hearings, suggesting it may have been chosen to create discomfort or intimidation.
2. “Why would anyone demand that I go on a vacation given to me as Chief Justice with my security escort alone, instead of going with my husband or daughter?”
– She referenced criticism over her vacation travel arrangements, questioning why her family’s presence should raise issues.
3. “How can this [travel with family] be a reason for subjecting a Chief Justice to a committee of inquiry?”
– She challenged the legitimacy of using personal travel decisions as grounds for disciplinary action.
4. “How can Justice Pwamang, who gave judgment in favour of Daniel Ofori, preside over processes to remove me as Chief Justice ostensibly for complaints Mr Ofori has?”
– The CJ flagged a possible conflict of interest, suggesting the chair of the committee may be compromised.
5. “Why has the Committee refused to give me copies of the petitions and the prima facie determination?”
– She revealed that her legal team has not been provided with essential documents underpinning the inquiry.
6. “What is important to state is… how can a hearing be conducted without clearly laid out claims, defences, and issues to be tried?”
– The CJ lamented the lack of clarity in the process, which she believes undermines due process.
7. “How tenable, if I can respectfully ask, can it be that a petition to remove the Chief Justice from office can be entertained on these grounds?”
– She raised concern about the legitimacy and gravity of the allegations being used to justify the probe.
8. “So what if these current proceedings are being carefully staged to result in my removal as Chief Justice—even if there is no lawful justification?”
– The CJ hinted at a possible plot to remove her regardless of the legal merit of the case.
9. “Why is it that the documents submitted to the President, including my responses, are not being disclosed to the inquiry or to the parties?”
– She questioned the lack of transparency in the handling of key communications and documents.
10. “How can judges, protected under Article 127(3) of the Constitution, be subjected to removal proceedings for decisions taken as part of a judicial panel?”
– Justice Torkornoo cited constitutional protection for judges acting in their judicial capacity, implying that the process violates that principle.
11. “What justifies the Committee’s rejection of CI 65 and adoption of CI 47, contrary to Article 146(7)?”
– She accused the committee of violating legal procedure by using the wrong Constitutional Instrument (CI) to guide the process.
12. “How can a group calling itself ‘Shining Stars’, with no legal status or registration, bring a petition to remove the Chief Justice?”
– She raised concern over the credibility of the petitioners, suggesting they lack the legal standing to initiate such a serious action.
13. “How is it suddenly unconstitutional, or wrong conduct, or incompetence for the Chief Justice to recommend judges for nomination?”
– The CJ defended her role in judicial appointments, arguing that it is a constitutional duty, not misconduct.
14. “If this model of removal can be tried on the Chief Justice, can it not be repeated with every judge or independent office holder?”
– She warned that this precedent could endanger judicial and institutional independence in Ghana.
15. “Why should I resign and validate a process that is unconstitutional and violates all known rules of
adjudication?”
– Ending her statement on a defiant note, the CJ made it clear she would not legitimise what she sees as an unlawful process by stepping down voluntarily.
Broader Context
The petitions seeking the removal of Chief Justice Torkornoo stem from several complaints, including issues linked to her conduct in high-profile judicial decisions and administrative actions within the judiciary.
However, the process has triggered intense public and legal debate, with analysts warning that it could destabilize the judiciary and undermine its independence.
Justice Torkornoo’s 15 questions have now put the spotlight on the legitimacy and transparency of the proceedings. Her statement is widely viewed as a robust defence of judicial integrity and a challenge to any attempts—perceived or real—to politicize the office of the Chief Justice.
