Ghana’s Chief Justice, Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, has formally requested copies of petitions filed against her, citing due process concerns. The petitions, reportedly submitted to President John Dramani Mahama, seek her removal from office under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution. However, unlike previous petitions of a similar nature, the identities of the petitioners remain unknown, raising concerns about transparency in the judicial accountability process.
Background and Legal Grounds
According to Ghana’s constitutional framework, when a petition is filed for the removal of a Superior Court Judge, the Chief Justice first determines whether there is a prima facie case before recommending an investigative committee. However, when the petition is against the Chief Justice, the process differs—the President forwards the petition to the Council of State for consultations before deciding whether to establish an investigative committee.
Justice Torkornoo, in her letter dated March 27, 2025, argues that she has not been provided with the contents of the petitions nor given an opportunity to respond. She insists that this violates natural justice and due process, laying claim to the fact that no individual should be judged without knowing the case against them—a principle captured in the legal maxim audi alteram partem.
She further referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Agyei-Twum v. Attorney-General & Akwettey (2005-2006) SCGLR 732, which emphasizes the right of an accused judge to respond before further action is taken.
Comparison to Previous Petition Against Chief Justice Torkornoo
This is not the first time Justice Torkornoo has faced a removal petition. One would recalled that, in December 2024, Professor Stephen Kwaku ‘Azar’ Asare, a constitutional lawyer and accounting professor, submitted a 19-page petition to Former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, seeking the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Sackey Torkornoo on grounds of alleged incompetence and misconduct.
The petition then accused Justice Torkornoo of actions such as reconstituting Supreme Court panels and issuing practice directions, which Prof. Asare claimed violated constitutional provisions.
However, upon review, President Akufo-Addo, in consultation with the Council of State, dismissed the petition on January 6, 2025, stating that it lacked merit and did not disclose a prima facie case warranting further action. The President highlighted that the petition was submitted without supporting evidence or documentation to substantiate its claims.
“The Office of the President wishes to inform the general public that, after a thorough and careful review of the petition for the removal of the Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, the President of the Republic, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, in consultation with the Council of State, has concluded that the petition does not disclose a prima facie case warranting further action,” he said.
Furthermore, Former President Akufo-Addo criticized the premature public circulation of the petition, emphasizing that it breached Article 146(8) of the Constitution, which mandates confidentiality in such proceedings to protect the integrity of the judiciary.
The current situation, however, stands in stark contrast. The identities of the petitioners remain undisclosed, and the Chief Justice has been left in the dark about the allegations against her. This secrecy has led to speculation about the political motivations behind the petition.
Many have also argued that the petitioners and the petitions have been cautiously left out of the public domain primarily to avoid a breach of Article 146(8) of the constitution as cited by the former president then.
Read More:
-
Prez Mahama Refers Petitions for Chief Justice’s Removal to Council of State
-
GRA Denies Freezing Richard Quaye’s Bank Accounts, Clarifies Tax Assessment Process
The Charllote Osei Factor
I believe this situation draws parallels to the 2018 removal of former Electoral Commission Chairperson Charlotte Osei. She was removed from office following a committee’s recommendation after a petition alleged procurement breaches and mismanagement.
The process was initiated under Article 146 of the Constitution, the same provision invoked in the petition against Chief Justice Torkornoo. The petition against her proceeded to a full investigation, culminating in her removal.
It would be recalled that Madam Osei made several attempts to receive copies of the petition, citing that as an integral part of her legal defense.
“I was provided with a statement of the allegations made against me in a letter from Her Ladyship, the Chief Justice in which she also asked me to respond to the allegations. It will also enable me to seek the requisite legal advice,” she explained.
Interestingly, the chief justice then was Madam Sophia A. B. Akuffo; a very good-standing member of the current Council of State whose consultation/counsel may very well form the backbone of this entire case.
Judicial Independence and Political Perspectives
The controversy has undoubtedly sparked diverse reactions from legal, and political circles and armchair lawyers like myself.
Some observers see this as a potential threat to judicial independence, arguing that petitions against judges should be handled with full transparency to prevent undue influence from political actors. There are concerns that if a Chief Justice can be removed through an opaque process, it may set a precedent that weakens the judiciary’s autonomy.
For a process as important as a the removal of the Chief Justice, there should be transparency and public update. No darkness. The need to maintain the independence of the office of the CJ is far too important for opaquenes which reeks of arbitrariness.
— Carl Gallagher (@yiniboma_) March 27, 2025
Others, however, argue that the petitioning process is constitutional and that the Chief Justice, like any other public official, should be subject to scrutiny. They contend that demanding the identities of petitioners could discourage citizens from coming forward with legitimate grievances. Some also believe that the Council of State and the President have the constitutional duty to assess the petition on its merits, regardless of how it was submitted.
Article 146 does not explicitly state that the Chief Justice’s consent is required before a petition for their removal is presented to the Council of State.
In fact, the article suggests that the President receives the petition and then acts in accordance with the advice of the…
— kwame Owusu Danso, Esq. (@kwameowusud) March 27, 2025
Additionally, as expected, several members of the opposition, the New Patriotic Party, have opposed the move geared towards the removal of the Chief Justice. Chief among them is the Member of Parliament for Tafo Pankrono, Vincent Assafuah, who has filed a legal motion to compel the Supreme Court to declare President Mahama’s consultation with the Council of State null and void.