The Supreme Court, the highest court of the land is under the microscope of Ghanaians who are observing with keen interest to see the rulings and judgments on the suit filed by the suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo.
Adherents of constitutional rule are also watching if the apex court will uphold the democratic tenets of separation powers, rule of law, judicial integrity and independence of the judicial or act in the interest of the Executive arm of government that is apparently bent on seeing the back of Chief Justice Torkornoo.
Pwamang Committee Hearing
THE CUSTODIAN learnt there were strong legal arguments on the first day of the Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang committee probing some three petitions, seeking the removal of the Chief Justice.
The paper gathered that Chief Justice Torkornoo and Daniel Ofori, one of three petitioners, were present at the hearing.
Former Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Nii Ayikoi Otoo and Kwabena Adu-Kusi are the lawyers for the Chief Justice while lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata is representing Daniel Ofori.
THE CUSTODIAN further heard that the Chief Justice’s husband was prevented from entering the venue for the committee hearing.
It all started when lawyer Ayikoi Otoo informed the committee that the Chief Justice has filed an application at the Supreme Court seeking an injunction against the committee and its members.
He argued that proceedings should be stayed pending the determination of the application before the Supreme Court.
However, lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata submitted that the Chief Justice and her team have been aware of the committee’s work for a while now, questioning why the CJ should be filing an injunction at this time.
He added that in any case, he thought three other similar applications have been dismissed by the Supreme Court, and that the present action would not be different.
After hearing the parties, the committee adjourned sitting and said it will communicate further decisions it takes to the parties.
Chief Justice Torkornoo’s suit
Chief Justice has filed a writ at the Supreme Court seeking, among other things, a declaration that she can waive the privilege given to her under Article 146 (6) (7) and (8) for an in-camera hearing on proceedings for her removal from office.
In the suit filed on Wednesday, 21 May 2025, by lawyer for the Chief Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, Mrs Torkornoo, as plaintiff and the Attorney General as the first Defendant, the Chief Justice is also asking the Supreme Court for additional 15 other reliefs.
The suit also names all five committee members President John Dramani Mahama set up to investigate the allegations against the Chief Justice as defendants in the case.
The Chief Justice wants Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang and Justice Samuel Adibu-Asiedu removed from the committee because she argued they are conflicted.
The other committee members named as defendants in the suit are Daniel Yao Domelevo, Major Flora Bazwaanura Dalugo, and Professor James Sefah Dzisah.
The CJ’s Reliefs sought
Among the other reliefs the Chief Justice is seeking are “a declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 17(1) and (2), 19(13) and (14), 146(7) and (8), 281(1) and 295(1) of the Constitution, a Chief Justice has the right to a public hearing in proceedings before a committee appointed by the President to inquire into a petition presented for the removal of the Chief Justice.
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 17(1) and (2), 19[13) and (14)23, 146(7) and (8), 281(1) and 295(1) of the Constitution, the right of a Chief Justice to a public hearing and all the incidents of a fair hearing may only be excluded in the interest of public morality, public safety, or public order.
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 17(1) and (2), 19(13) and (14), 23, 146(7) and (8), 281(1) and 295(1) of the Constitution, a Chief Justice who is called upon to participate in a hearing conducted by a committee constituted under article 146(6) tom inquire into the merits of a petition seeking the removal from office of the Chief Justice can waive the privilege of in camera proceedings.
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 19(13), 23, 146(1), (2), (4) and (6) a and 296 of the Constitution, a determination of prima facie case in respect of a petition for the removal of a Chief Justice or a Justice of the Superior Court of Judicature is a quasi-judicial process requiring a judicious evaluation, culminating in a reasoned decision.
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 19(13), 23, 146/1), (2), (4) and (6) and 296 of the Constitution, the purported prima facie finding in respect of three petitions presented for the removal of the Chief Justice and served on the Plaintiff by a letter dated 22″d April, 2025, does not amount to a proper determination of a prima facie case and is therefore null, void and of no effect;
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 19(13), 23, 146(1),(2),(4) and (6) and 296 of the Constitution, the purported prima facie finding in respect of three petitions presented for the removal of the Chief Justice and served on the Plaintiff by a letter dated 22ad April, 2025, does not amount to a proper determination of a prima facie case and is therefore null, void and of no effect;
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 19(13), 23, 146(1), (2), (4) and (6) and 296 of the Constitution, the purported finding by the President that a prima facie case has been made against the Plaintiff and served on the President by a letter dated 22nd April, 2025, was arbitrary, capricious, in violation of the right of the Plaintiff to a fair trial, and therefore unconstitutional, void and of no effect;
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 146(1), (2), (4), 125(3) and (4), 127(1) and (2) and 296 of the Constitution, the purported determination by the President that a prima facie case has been established against the Plaintiff as conveyed in the letter dated 22nd April 2025, together with the warrant of suspension of the Plaintiff, constitute an unjustified attempt to remove the Plaintiff as Head of Ghana’s Judiciary and thus, an undue infringement on the independence of the Judiciary;
“a declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of article 146(6) and (7) of the Constitution, the failure to serve the Plaintiff with a judicious determination of a prima facie case before appointing a committee to purportedly inquire into the petitions for the removal of the Plaintiff as Chief Justice constitutes a violation of the Plaintiffs right to substantive administrative justice and fair hearing, rendering the entire proceedings initiated null and void; 146(6) and (7) and 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution, the 2nd defendant, Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, is not qualified to be a chairman or member of the committee set up by the President to inquire into the petitions against the plaintiff on account of having adjudicated and given various rulings in favour of one of the petitioners, Daniel Ofori in actions fled in the Supreme Court.
“An order prohibiting the 2nd defendant, Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, from presiding as Chairman of the committee or participating in the proceedings of the committee set up to inquire into the petitions against the Plaintiff,
“An order prohibiting the 3rd defendant, Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, from siting as a member of or participating in the proceedings of the committee set up to inquire into the petitions against the Plaintiff.
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 23, 127(1) and (2), 146/(6) and (7) and 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution, the appointment of the 3rd defendant, Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, as a member of the committee set up by the President to inquire into the petitions against the Plaintiff, at a time when he had already sat as a member of a panel of the Supreme Court constituted under article 128(2) of the Constitution to hear an application for interlocutory injunction fled by a Ghanaian citizen challenging the ‘article 146 proceedings’ initiated against the Plaintiff, violates the independence of the Judiciary;
“A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 146(1), (2), (4), 23 and 296 of the Constitution and sections 1, 2, and 4 of the Oaths Act, 1972, the 4h, 5th and 6ih defendants are not qualified to undertake the functions entrusted on them as members of the committee set up by the President to inquire into the petitions against the Plaintiff.
“An order restraining the committee set up by the President to inquire into the three petitions against the Chief Justice composed of the 2n0, 3rd, 4t, 5h and 6th defendants from proceeding to carry out the terms of reference of the committee set up under article 146(6) as laid out in the letter dated 22nd April, 2025 and any other order(s) as to this Honourable Court may seem meet”.
Background
Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo was suspended from office by the President of the Republic, John Dramani Mahama, on Tuesday (22 April 2025).
The president’s actions, which are said to be grounded in Article 146 (10) of the 1992 constitution, were primarily inspired by three petitions that the president received seeking the removal of the Chief Justice from office.
A group calling itself Shining Stars of Ghana submitted the first petition to the president on 14 February 2025.
Kingsley Agyei, who describes himself as the chairman and convenor of the Shining Stars of Ghana, signed the petition.
The second petition, presented to the president by Daniel Ofori, is dated Monday, March 17, 2025.
The petitioner essentially states 21 allegations of misbehaviour and four allegations of incompetence, all of which relate to the Chief Justice’s discharge of her administrative roles and functions as head of the judiciary.
Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Ayamga Yakubu Akolgo (Esq), a senior police officer in the Ghana Police Service stationed at the National Police Headquarters in Accra, is the third and final petitioner to submit a petition to the president for the removal of the Chief Justice from office. Akolgo’s submission was also made on 14 February 2025.
After hearing the parties, the committee adjourned sitting to today, May 23, 2025 and said it will communicate further decisions it takes to the parties.
