By Daniel Bampoe
The National Democratic Congress (NDC) has escalated its support for the ongoing suspension and investigation of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, framing it as part of a broader effort to “sanitize” Ghana’s judiciary and restore public trust in democratic institutions.
This follows a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court on May 28, 2025, which dismissed an injunction application filed by the embattled Chief Justice.
Justice Torkornoo had sought to halt the work of a five-member committee set up by President John Dramani Mahama to investigate petitions calling for her removal from office. The Court’s ruling paves the way for the presidential committee to proceed with its inquiry.
Prominent NDC figures and allied commentators have since publicly endorsed the decision.
Dr. Sofo Rashid Tanko, CEO of the Ghana Investment Fund for Electronic Communications (GIFEC), hailed the judgment as a milestone for judicial reform.
“The law is the law,” he said during an appearance on Channel One TV’s Breakfast Daily. “All the judges who made this decision are seasoned and not appointees of the current administration. What Justice Torkornoo attempted—trying to injunct the president’s powers—is unheard of.”
His statement underscores the party’s broader message: that no public official, including the Chief Justice, is above accountability.
The NDC has portrayed the ongoing proceedings not as an attack on judicial independence, but as a long-overdue reckoning with perceived ethical lapses at the top of Ghana’s legal hierarchy.
The Bongo MP, Charles Bawaduah, has also dismissed claims that the proceedings are flawed or politically motivated.
Responding to concerns raised by former Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame, who represents Justice Torkornoo, Bawaduah insisted that the process is “strictly constitutional.”
“There’s no flaw anywhere,” he said on The Point of View with Bernard Avle. “This is a legal, not political, matter.
The Chief Justice’s legal team failed to meet the threshold for an injunction. The Supreme Court merely applied the law.”
Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu further backed the ruling, acknowledging that while Article 146—which outlines the removal process for superior court judges—has imperfections, it remains legally valid.
“We can’t put the brakes on the CJ’s removal just because Article 146 isn’t perfect,” he argued, citing other outdated legal frameworks still in operation.
Legislative Overhaul
The controversy comes amid a broader legal reform agenda being rolled out by the Mahama administration.
On May 27, Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga announced in Parliament that the government will soon introduce a new legal framework to govern the removal of judges, especially those serving on the Supreme Court.
Titled the Removal from Office of Justices of the Supreme Court Rules, the new legislation is expected to provide detailed procedures, clear evidence thresholds, and institutional checks to eliminate ambiguities in the current constitutional provisions.
“This is not control—it is clarity,” Ayariga told Parliament. “We want to entrench judicial accountability while safeguarding independence.”
He revealed that the bill would be drafted in consultation with key legal stakeholders, including the Ghana Bar Association, Judicial Council, and civil society organizations.
The reforms are part of a larger legislative package that includes over 20 bills targeting public sector accountability and justice system efficiency.
These include reforms to legal education, the conduct of public officers, and amendments to outdated court rules.
Judiciary Under Scrutiny
The suspension of Justice Torkornoo earlier this year by President Mahama marked the first time in Ghana’s Fourth Republic that a sitting Chief Justice had been placed under formal investigation.
The move ignited a fierce debate about the balance between executive oversight and judicial independence.
While NDC leaders continue to defend the process as lawful and necessary, critics—including members of the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) and some legal analysts—warn of potential executive overreach.
But for the ruling administration and its allies, the stakes are clear: rebuilding a judiciary they say has suffered reputational damage and political interference in recent years.
