President John Dramani Mahama has suspended the Chief Justice of Ghana, Her Ladyship Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, following the establishment of a prima facie case based on three separate petitions submitted against her.
The action, taken in accordance with Article 146(6) of the Constitution, was done after consultation with the Council of State.
In response, President Mahama has constituted a five-member committee to investigate the allegations. The panel is chaired by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang of the Supreme Court. Other members include Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu of the Supreme Court, former Auditor-General Daniel Yaw Domelevo, Major Flora Bazwaanura Dalugo of the Ghana Armed Forces, and Professor James Sefah Dzisah of the University of Ghana.
According to a statement signed by the Minister for Government Communications and Presidential Spokesperson, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, the Chief Justice has been suspended with immediate effect under Article 146(10), pending the committee’s findings.
This move by President Mahama could pass as one of the most significant constitutional actions in recent Ghanaian history and echoes earlier high-profile judicial accountability efforts. It’s not the first time the executive has intervened in judicial affairs through constitutional provisions, but this case stands out due to the stature of the office involved.
Read More:
- Chief Justice Torkornoo Fights for Due Process, Demands Copies of Petition to Oust her
- Prez Mahama Refers Petitions for Chief Justice’s Removal to Council of State
- Vice President Speaks after Health Scare, Thanks Ghanaians for Well Wishes
Justice Torkornoo, who has been a symbol of legal continuity and reform since her appointment, now faces a formal inquiry—an event that will test the resilience and impartiality of Ghana’s constitutional checks and balances.
Observers will note parallels with the 2015 probe against then-Chairperson of the Electoral Commission, Charlotte Osei, which similarly relied on Article 146 processes.
Critics of the suspension may see political motivations, particularly during a period of a much-touted ORAL agenda and the potential reshaping of the judiciary’s top leadership. Supporters, however, argue it’s a sign of democratic maturity and respect for due process.
Regardless of the outcome, the proceedings will likely have long-lasting implications on our judiciary.