Counsel for the suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, Godfred Yeboah Dame, has initiated legal action at the Supreme Court seeking the removal of Justices Gabriel Pwamang and Samuel Adibu-Asiedu from the five-member committee constituted by President John Dramani Mahama to investigate petitions for her removal from office.
In the suit filed on Wednesday, May 21, 2025, the Chief Justice is also requesting an interlocutory injunction to halt all proceedings of the committee pending the final determination of the case.
The committee, set up under Article 146 of the Constitution, includes Justices Pwamang and Adibu-Asiedu, as well as Daniel Yao Domelevo, Major Flora Bazuwaaruah Dalugo, and Professor James Sefah Dziasah.
The Chief Justice further wants the Supreme Court to restrain the entire committee from continuing any inquiry into the petitions lodged against her.
Additionally, the suit specifically seeks to bar Justices Pwamang and Adibu-Asiedu from participating in or presiding over any aspect of the committee’s deliberations.
She is also asking the Court to suspend the operation of the presidential warrant for her suspension, issued under Article 146(10), until the case is fully resolved.
This legal action, filed by her legal team at Dame and Partners, comes in the wake of two failed attempts by other parties to challenge the same proceedings.
Below is a list of the 16 reliefs in the interlocutory injunction
1 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;
2 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;
3 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) to inquire into the merits of a petition seeking the removal from office of the Chief Justice can waive the privilege of “in camera proceedings”.
4 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, a determination of a 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.
5 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 22nd April, 2025, does not amount to a proper determination of a prima facie case and is therefore null, void and of no effect;
6 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;
7 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;
8 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;
9 An order setting aside the warrant for suspension issued by the President dated 22nd April, 2025 to suspend the Plaintiff as Chief Justice of the Republic;
10 A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 23, 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 filed in the Supreme Court;
11 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;
12 A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 23, 7(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 filed by a Ghanaian citizen challenging the “article 146 proceedings” initiated against the Plaintiff, violates the independence of the Judiciary;
13 An order prohibiting the 3rd defendant, Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, from sitting as a member of or participating in the proceedings of the committee set up to inquire into the petitions against the Plaintiff;
14 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 4th, 5th and 6th 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;
15 An order restraining the committee set up by the President to inquire into the three petitions against the Chief Justice composed of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th , 5th 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;
16 Any other order(s) as to this Honourable Court may seem meet.
KA
Watch as Accra Mayor begins decongestion exercise
