By Daniel Bampoe
A high-level probe into the conduct of Ghana’s Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, officially commenced on Thursday, 15th May 2025, as three prominent lawyers associated with the National Democratic Congress (NDC) stepped into the spotlight to represent petitioners calling for her removal.
The five-member committee overseeing the investigation is chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang and was established following a constitutional directive under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.
This follows President John Dramani Mahama’s suspension of the Chief Justice on 22nd April 2025, 24 days prior, based on multiple petitions alleging misconduct and incompetence.
Legal Titans Join Petitioners’ Cause
At the committee’s first sitting, conducted in camera as mandated by law, veteran NDC lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata appeared alongside Thaddeus Sory to represent the group Shining Stars of Ghana, one of the petitioners.
Meanwhile, activist lawyer Oliver Barker-Vormawor represented Daniel Ofori, a private citizen who filed a separate petition.
The third petitioner, Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Ayamga Yakubu Akolgo, who is also a qualified lawyer, chose to represent himself.
All three petitioners have requested the removal of the Chief Justice on grounds ranging from administrative lapses to allegations of incompetence and misconduct in the execution of her judicial leadership.
Public Hearing Request Denied
In a bold move, Chief Justice Torkornoo requested that the committee hearings be made public, arguing that since the petitions and related processes had been conducted in public, the actual proceedings should be no different.
Her plea, however, was rejected by the committee, which cited the constitutional requirement under Article 146 for the process to be held in camera.
The committee clarified it would be guided in its procedures by the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), which are typically applied in both High and Circuit Courts in Ghana.
Background
The controversy began in February and March 2025 when three separate petitions were submitted to President Mahama.
The first was filed on February 14, Valentine day, by Shining Stars of Ghana, a pressure group led by Kingsley Agyei, who signed the petition as chairman and convenor.
The group called for the Chief Justice’s removal, citing constitutional violations in her administration of the judiciary.
On March 17, Daniel Ofori submitted a second petition, laying out a total of 25 allegations—21 citing misbehaviour and four pointing to incompetence—regarding the Chief Justice’s conduct and performance in office.
The third petition, also dated February 14, was presented by ACP Ayamga Yakubu Akolgo, a senior police officer stationed at the National Headquarters in Accra.
Akolgo echoed concerns about administrative missteps and a lack of ethical leadership within the judicial system.
In response, President Mahama activated Article 146(10), triggering a constitutional process for an independent inquiry.
This led to the formation of the investigative committee, pending the outcome of which the Chief Justice was suspended from active duty.
Composition
The panel is led by Justice Pwamang, one of the Supreme Court’s most senior members, especially with the Chief Justice temporarily out of office. The other committee members include:
Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, Supreme Court Justice
Daniel Yaw Domelevo, former Auditor-General
Major Flora Bazwaanura Dalugo, officer of the Ghana Armed Forces
Professor James Sefah Dzisah, academic from the University of Ghana
These individuals represent a mix of legal, military, auditing, and academic backgrounds, suggesting a broad-based approach to assessing the gravity and credibility of the allegations.
Political Undertones and Legal Precedent
While the petitioners are acting within the bounds of the constitution, the involvement of legal personalities closely linked to the NDC has added political overtones to the case.
The situation has further raised questions about judicial independence and the possible politicisation of oversight mechanisms.
