–By Nadia Ntiamoah
The Supreme Court of Ghana has dismissed a second legal challenge aimed at halting the ongoing inquiry into the potential removal of suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.
In a closely watched judgment delivered on Wednesday, May 21, the Court, by a 4–1 majority decision, ruled that the case brought by private a citizen Theodore Kofi Atta-Quartey lacked merit.
This ruling mirrors an earlier decision delivered the same day, in which the Court also dismissed a separate suit filed by the Centre for Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems (CenCES).
Both cases sought to overturn President John Mahama’s April 22 suspension of the Chief Justice and to stop the work of the committee of inquiry established under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.
Background: A Judiciary in the Crosshairs
Justice Gertrude Torkornoo’s suspension by President Mahama marked a significant and controversial moment in Ghana’s democratic and judicial history.
The decision followed the receipt of three petitions seeking her removal from office, prompting the President to invoke Article 146(10) of the Constitution, which allows for the suspension of a judge once a prima facie case is determined and a committee of inquiry is established.
The move immediately drew legal scrutiny and political debate, with critics—including civil society groups and legal observers—raising concerns about executive interference in judicial independence.
CenCES was the first to mount a legal challenge, arguing that the President’s actions breached constitutional provisions regarding due process and the independence of the judiciary.
CenCES Challenge Falls Flat
In their suit, CenCES claimed that the President acted unconstitutionally by suspending the Chief Justice without proper legal backing or adherence to prescribed procedures.
They requested the Supreme Court to declare the suspension invalid and to halt the proceedings of the committee formed to probe the allegations.
However, the apex court, comprising Justices Paul Baffoe-Bonnie (presiding), Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, Yonny Kulendi, Henry Anthony Kwofie, and Yaw Asare Darko, dismissed the case.
Four justices upheld the President’s authority and actions as constitutionally valid. Justice Asare Darko was the lone dissenter in both rulings.
Atta-Quartey’s Suit: A Broader Constitutional Challenge
The second suit, filed by Theodore Kofi Atta-Quartey on May 20, sought even more sweeping constitutional clarifications.
He argued that the processes surrounding the Chief Justice’s suspension and the subsequent inquiry were fundamentally flawed because they were not regulated by a published constitutional instrument, as required under Articles 23 and 296 of the Constitution.
His application requested five key reliefs, including:
1. A declaration that the President’s discretion to determine a prima facie case must be governed by a constitutional instrument.
2. A declaration that the Council of State’s advisory role must be codified and transparent.
3. A declaration that the committee of inquiry must operate within clearly defined procedures and powers under a constitutional instrument.
4. An order nullifying the suspension of the Chief Justice and the entire process that followed.
5. Any further orders to safeguard the judiciary’s institutional independence.
Atta-Quartey also filed for an interlocutory injunction to suspend the committee’s operations pending final determination of his suit.
This, too, was dismissed by the Court, which maintained that the ongoing process did not breach any constitutional requirement.
Legal and Political Implications
The Supreme Court’s twin rulings represent a major legal endorsement of President Mahama’s handling of the crisis surrounding the judiciary’s highest office.
With both legal challenges now dismissed, the committee of inquiry has a clear path to continue its work to determine whether the Chief Justice should be permanently removed from office.
The rulings also reaffirm the constitutional processes laid out under Article 146, effectively setting a precedent for future judicial accountability cases involving top judges.
However, the dissenting opinion from Justice Yaw Asare Darko signals that debate around executive discretion and judicial independence remains unresolved in Ghana’s evolving constitutional democracy.
