A storm of controversy has erupted over growing calls for the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, with former Deputy Attorney-General, Diana Asonaba Dapaah, stepping forward to publicly defend the embattled Chief Justice.
In a strongly worded critique of the ongoing impeachment discourse, the former Deputy AG has described the petitions against Justice Torkornoo as “frivolous” and a threat to the integrity of Ghana’s judiciary.
Background
At the heart of the controversy are multiple petitions Justice Torkornoo.
The petitions cite alleged abuse of office, wrongful dismissals of judicial staff, questionable administrative decisions, and perceived political biases.
The President subsequently forwarded the matter to the Chief Justice, setting the stage for a preliminary investigation and possible impeachment proceedings.
The Defence
Asonaba Dapaah, who served in the Ministry of Justice until recently, questions the very foundation of the impeachment calls.
In her statement, she challenged the logic of presenting a prima facie case against the Chief Justice based on decisions made by a collective panel of Supreme Court justices.
“How can a decision made by a Chief Justice as part of a panel of five or more justices be singularly attributed to her as grounds for removal?”
She asked, noting that some of the same justices involved in those rulings are now members of the committee reviewing the petitions.
Dapaah also criticized the inclusion of administrative decisions—some taken long before Justice Torkornoo assumed office—as alleged evidence of misconduct.
For instance, one petition cites the dismissal of a judicial staff member for absenteeism. “Why haven’t those individuals pursued legal avenues for redress if they were wrongfully dismissed?” she questioned.
On Allegations of Political Exposure
The former Deputy A-G addressed another claim that has drawn public attention: that the Chief Justice is “politically exposed.”
Dapaah dismissed this as an impractical standard, arguing that by the same logic, every judge in Ghana would be politically exposed due to the nature of judicial appointments involving the President, Parliament, and Judicial Council.
“The process of appointing a Chief Justice is thoroughly vetted and institutionalized,” she noted, explaining that Article 144 of the Constitution ensures checks and balances through multiple layers of approval.
“If we disqualify judges on that basis, we disqualify the entire bench.”
The Travel Policy Controversy
Dapaah further addressed claims that the Chief Justice had abused her privileges under the Judicial Service’s travel policy.
Critics had cited “page 37” of the travel policy document to claim she took undue advantage of state resources for personal travel.
The former Deputy Attorney-General debunked that claim, pointing out that the policy—aligned with Article 71 of the Constitution—clearly provides unlimited official travels for the Chief Justice, accompanied by a spouse or any chosen individual, and two fully-funded personal travels annually.
“These are entitlements legally recommended by the relevant emolument committee,” she explained. “Let’s not pretend the judiciary is some second-tier branch of government.”
A Broader Democratic Concern
In closing, Dapaah framed the matter not as a personal defense of Gertrude Torkornoo, but as a defence of the judiciary as a whole.
She drew a powerful connection between current attacks on the Chief Justice and past tragedies, invoking the memory of the three murdered High Court judges during Ghana’s military era.
“This is not a Torkornoo fight. It’s a fight for every judge in this country, a fight in memory of those whose lives were taken in service of justice, and a fight for the survival of our democratic order,” she stated.
She called on Ghanaians to remain vigilant and demand the full facts. “The truth must come out. We owe it to ourselves and the future of this nation’s judiciary.”
