The ongoing probe into the allegations against Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo appears to be akin to a classic poem that reflects on the cruelty and indifference in human nature and its consequences thereof.
Quoting the phrase “man’s inhumanity to man,” the poem entreated readers to strive for a more compassionate and just world like what all well-meaning Ghanaians are urging the Justice Pwamang Committee to do.
In the instance case, it can be described as “man’s inhumanity to woman,” as suspended Chief Justice Torkornoo has condemned the Justice Pwamang Committee’s proceedings investigating petitions for her removal.
She labelled the proceedings as a “mockery of justice” and a “ruse” to unjustly remove her from office, which is inhuman and a degrading treatment being meted out to the head of the third arm of government.
In a supplementary affidavit filed at the Supreme Court as part of her legal battle, Chief Justice Torkornoo cited persistent violations of her constitutional rights and a sustained assault on judicial independence.
“The whole proceedings initiated against me are a mockery of justice and a ruse to unjustifiably remove me from office as the Chief Justice,” she reiterated.
Justice Torkornoo further accused the committee of desecrating her right to a fair trial and subjecting her to “inhuman and degrading treatment, of a kind not meted out even to persons on trial for treason.”
Justice Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu’s dissenting opinion
In the same Justice Torkornoo case at the Supreme Court, a Supreme Court Judge in a strongly-worded dissenting opinion probably reshaped the balance of power between Ghana’s executive and judicial branches.
Professor Justice Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu in the dissenting with Justice Ernest Gaewu, in a 3-2 majority decision, reaffirmed the constitutional protections for the judiciary, delivering a sharp critique of President John Dramani Mahama’s decision to suspend Chief Justice Torkornoo.
The dissenting opinion came in the landmark case of Vincent Ekow Assafuah v. Attorney General, in which Justice Mensa-Bonsu upheld the sanctity of judicial independence and denounced what she described as a reckless undermining of due process.
The apex court’s 3-2 majority decision spanned 81 pages, but it was the comment of the Professor on page 76 that captured public and legal attention.
Drawing a vivid analogy, Justice Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu warned of the dangers of trivialising the removal of the Chief Justice.
“How can the judiciary guarantee everyone’s constitutional right to fair treatment, if it cannot enjoy any such right when allegations of impropriety are made against the head of that institution itself? The people of Ghana would certainly be the poorer for having a judiciary that cannot protect them against the overweening power of the executive.
“Another class of citizens on whom there would be hardship is the class of persons who have made the decision to serve the country in the role of judges. Perhaps, they may be forced to re-think their options and career choices if removing the head of the institution is no more difficult than removing a class prefect of a school from office,” she emphasised.
Acting Chief Justice, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, along with Justices Yonny Kulendi and Amadu Tanko, ruled to dismiss the Assafuah’s injunction request.
Violation of safeguards
Justice Torkornoo filed her motion on May 21, 2025, against the Attorney-General and five other respondents including two sitting Justices of the Supreme Court, contending that the committee set up by President Mahama to probe petitions against her is conducting its work in violation of basic legal and constitutional safeguards.
No specific allegations
The suspended Chief Justice revealed that despite formally notifying Pwamang Committee on May 22, 2025, of her pending legal action and the application for injunction before the Supreme Court, the committee expressed its intent to proceed with the inquiry.
Justice Torkornoo also raised concerns about the committee’s failure to provide the legal basis or criteria for establishing a prima facie case against her.
“I have not been informed of the specific allegations or the basis for the determination of a prima facie case against me,” she stated.
According to her, this lack of transparency hinders her ability to understand her rights and prepare an adequate defence.
Non-recognition of her counsel
Justice Torkornoo further decried the committee’s refusal to recognise her counsel during a previous sitting on May 19, simply because she was not physically present.
She pointed out that this same counsel had been served with a hearing notice by the committee just a day earlier.
Even more troubling, Justice Torkornoo noted, was the decision by the committee to exclude the petitioners from testifying in person, instead opting to call witnesses on their behalf.
This, the suspended Chief Justice bemoaned as “completely offensive to known rules of procedure regulating committees or commissions of inquiry.”
Degrading
To make matters worse, Justice Torkornoo decried she has been subjected to mental distress by the committee’s actions, including denial of access to her mobile phones, invasive body searches, and refusal to admit her husband and children into the hearing room.
However, the suspended Chief Justice indicated that the petitioners’ counsel and clients were allowed mobile phone access and received preferential treatment.
She recounted that her husband and children were denied entry into the hearing room, and both she and her lawyers were subjected to body searches and barred from accessing their phones and laptops, while petitioners’ lawyers faced no such restrictions.
Mental torture
The hearing venue, she added, being held at a high-security zone in Osu’s Castle area rather than a judicial facility, was unprecedented for Article 146 proceedings and indicative of an intent to subject her to mental torture.
Justice Torkornoo described the current setting as inappropriate and intimidating.
According to her, the Pwamang Committee set hearing dates without her knowledge or the involvement of her counsel, who was unavailable on the specified day.
Reliefs being sought
In her affidavit, Justice Torkornoo pleaded with the Supreme Court to intervene by granting an injunction to halt the proceedings.
She warned that failure to do so could have far-reaching implications for the independence and security of tenure of members of the judiciary.
“I respectfully pray for this Honourable Court’s intervention… to prevent the assault on judicial independence and protect the security of tenure of the Chief Justice and Justices of the Superior Courts of Judicature at play in the instant case,” she stated.
The suit listed the Attorney-General, Justices Gabriel Pwamang and Samuel Kwame Adibu Asiedu, former Auditor-General Daniel Yao Domelevo, Major Flora Banaanura Dalugo, and Professor James Sefah Dzisah as respondents.
Background
Chief Justice Torkornoo was suspended from office by President Mahama, on Tuesday, April 22, 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 stated 21 allegations of misbehaviour and four allegations of incompetence, all of which related 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, was the third and final petitioner.
Akolgo’s submission was also made on 14 February 2025.
