–BY Daniel Bampoe
At least 50 judges across Ghana’s superior and lower courts — including three recently nominated for elevation to the Supreme Court — were erroneously paid housing (rent) allowances despite being ineligible, official documents from the Judicial Service reveal.
Among them was Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, whose inclusion has stirred political commentary and sparked debate on whether any of the affected judges should face disciplinary action or withdrawal of appointments.
According to verified records, the payments — made between 2020 and 2022 under the tenure of former Chief Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah — were the result of administrative lapses within the Judicial Service.
Once the errors were detected, all affected judges, including the current Chief Justice, were asked to refund the undeserved amounts.
They complied in full, and the service subsequently reimbursed them for tax components that were initially deducted.
Chief Justice Torkornoo was paid GHC 152,768.40, tax inclusive. Upon notification, she refunded GHC 118,689.30 after being reimbursed with GHC 34,079.10 for taxes wrongly deducted on the amount paid to her.
Her inclusion in the list has drawn scrutiny, particularly in the context of recent political pressure following her suspension by President John Mahama over unrelated issues.
Nominees for Supreme Court
Among the 49 other judges were Court of Appeal Justices Janapare A. Bartels-Kodwo, P. Bright Mensah, and Senyo Dzamefe — all nominated by President Mahama for elevation to the Supreme Court.
Justice Bartels-Kodwo received GHC 90,548.46, refunded GHC 69,330.38 after being reimbursed for taxes. Justice Bright Mensah repaid GHC 81,970.98, while Justice Dzamefe refunded GHC 72,982.44.
Both received tax reimbursements of GHC 23,899.42 and GHC 21,992.76, respectively.
The emergence of these figures has raised eyebrows, with some questioning whether their nominations should be reconsidered in light of the payments — despite the Judicial Service categorically stating the judges bore no fault and fully cooperated in rectifying the mistake.
Background and Fallout
The controversy was reignited by critics who singled out Chief Justice Torkornoo for allegedly accepting housing allowances while occupying an official residence.
However, Judicial Service insiders have described the criticism as “disingenuous and politically motivated,” arguing that the issue was a systemic accounting error, not personal misconduct.
“This was an internal administrative failure that affected dozens of judges across various ranks. To isolate the Chief Justice or any individual judge is to ignore the full context,” a senior source at the Judicial Service said.
Judicial Independence or Double Standards?
The incident occurs amid heightened political tension over perceived attacks on judicial independence.
Critics argue that efforts to tarnish the Chief Justice’s reputation — especially when she acted transparently and refunded the funds — appear aimed at weakening the judiciary’s standing.
“If the Chief Justice is to be faulted for receiving and refunding an unintended allowance, then so must the 49 others, including those currently up for Supreme Court appointments,” the source added.
As of now, there is no indication from the Presidency or Parliament that the nominations of Justices Bartels-Kodwo, Bright Mensah, or Dzamefe will be withdrawn.
However legal analysts suggest that the incident, though unfortunate, does not amount to misconduct and therefore does not meet the threshold for disqualification.
The Judicial Service is reportedly reviewing its internal financial controls to prevent future administrative errors of this nature.
