The embattled and suspended Chief Justice of Ghana, Her Ladyship Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey-Torkornoo, has now filed yet another lawsuit—this time before the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice in Abuja, Nigeria—alleging human rights violations arising from her suspension. According to Justice Srem Sai, a Ghana’s Deputy Attorney General and Minister of Justice, the petition was filed on 4 July 2025, and echoes claims already under review at both Ghana’s Supreme Court and High Court.
In a press conference held on 25 June 2025, Justice Torkornoo challenged the legality of the ongoing removal proceedings and questioned the constitutionality of her suspension under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. However, her assertions are legally and constitutionally flawed. While her grievances are cloaked in the language of judicial independence and due process, they misrepresent the text, spirit, and intent of Article 146. More than 60% of Ghanaians, according to a recent InfoAnalytics poll, support her removal.
At the center of this latest controversy is Justice Edward Amoako Asante, President of the ECOWAS Court, who is likely to preside over the Chief Justice’s case. He is among five judges whom Justice Torkornoo allegedly nominated for promotion to Ghana’s Supreme Court—an act that forms part of the prima facie allegations made by three petitioners against her. These nominations, it is alleged, were influenced by favouritism or coercion. This raises serious concerns of conflict of interest, as outlined under Article 16 of the ECOWAS Court Protocol (2005) and judicial ethical standards. These principles require disqualification in cases involving:
Personal or institutional interests, and Reasonable apprehension of bias based on prior dealings with a party involved. It would, therefore, be inappropriate and unethical for Justice Edward Amoako Asante to sit on a case brought by the very person whose controversial nomination is under judicial scrutiny in their home country.
Judicial Forum Shopping and Procedural Maneuvering
Justice Torkornoo’s recourse to the ECOWAS Court—while her domestic cases remain unresolved—amounts to forum shopping: the act of seeking a favourable jurisdiction rather than respecting the rule of law. By petitioning the ECOWAS Court, Justice Torkornoo alleges:
Violation of her right to work (African Charter, Article 15). Breach of fair hearing (ICCPR, Article 14).
Yet, her claims ignore critical nuances:
Domestic Remedies Not Exhausted: Ghana’s courts are yet to rule on her pending cases. ECOWAS typically requires exhaustion of local avenues. Suspension ≠ Removal: Her temporary suspension aligns with constitutional safeguards; it does not terminate her appointment.
It reflects a troubling strategy of dilatory litigation. Even more concerning is the tone of her public statements, which have shifted the legal battle into the realm of media spectacle and political influence, rather than judicial decorum.
Ghana’s Constitution clearly provides a due process roadmap for removal of justices through Article 146. Once a prima facie case is established by the Council of State (in this case, 30 out of 31 members agreed), the President is mandated to suspend the officeholder and constitute a five-member committee to investigate. President John Dramani Mahama complied strictly with this process.
Justice Torkornoo’s portrayal of the lawful process as unconstitutional or as violating her human rights disrespects the constitutional system that appointed her in the first place. Ironically, she now undermines the same constitution she swore to uphold.
Fairness to Ordinary Citizens and Legal Institutions
Her actions present a challenge to the principle of equality before the law, enshrined in Article 17 of the Constitution of Ghana. By turning to international courts while still involved in domestic proceedings, the suspended Chief Justice signals to ordinary citizens that some individuals are above lawful scrutiny.
Her case unfairly casts aspersions on multiple Ghanaian institutions:
The Council of State, which lawfully advised the President to form an investigative committee. The Presidency, which acted ministerially in line with the Constitution. The legal system itself, by suggesting that its processes are unreliable simply because they affect her. Public trust in judicial integrity cannot coexist with the idea that a Chief Justice is immune to investigation. To quote A.V. Dicey’s doctrine of the Rule of Law, no individual—regardless of office—is exempt from legal accountability.
Do Her Claims Amount to Human Rights Violations?
The ECOWAS Court hears cases involving serious violations of fundamental human rights. But does her suspension—pursuant to a prima facie finding and pending committee investigation—rise to that level? The answer is likely no. Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees access to remedies for violations of constitutional rights, but only where actual harm or breach occurs.
Justice Torkornoo has not been permanently removed. She has not been denied a hearing. She has not been denied legal representation. She is not in detention. Thus, her claim that she is being denied due process does not meet the threshold of gross violation of human rights that ECOWAS typically adjudicates.
On the Matter of Conflict of Interest
The ethical question of whether Justice Edward Amoako Asante can preside over her ECOWAS petition is not a mere technicality. It goes to the heart of judicial impartiality. When a presiding judge has even an appearance of prior involvement with the petitioner—especially in a matter now under constitutional scrutiny in their country—it undermines public confidence in the court.
In Judicial Ethics and Conduct standards globally, such as those followed by the International Association of Judges and the Bangalore Principles, disqualification is required when:
There is a personal connection to a party; The judge is a potential witness; The judge’s name or reputation is involved in the matter at hand. By virtue of being named as one of the controversial nominees, Justice Asante should recuse himself. Anything less would compromise the integrity of the ECOWAS Court and give credence to critics of judicial overreach and manipulation.
Conclusion: Uphold Rule of Law, Not Rule of Influence
Justice Torkornoo’s suspension is not a personal vendetta—it is a constitutional necessity triggered by credible petitions and followed by lawful procedures. Her approach risks creating a precedent of constitutional sabotage, where public officeholders, instead of defending themselves through local processes, use foreign courts and media sympathy to escape accountability.
The real danger here is not just the legal argument, but the erosion of public trust in the justice system. If Ghana’s Chief Justice cannot submit to her own country’s constitutional processes, what hope remains for ordinary litigants?
Ghana’s democracy must be governed by the supremacy of law—not personality, not sympathy, not social status. The work of the committee must proceed without fear or favour, and the ECOWAS Court must respect the internal processes of its Member States—especially when the matter before it is both premature and conflicted.
Justice is not only about protecting rights—it is about preserving institutional legitimacy. Her Ladyship must, therefore, return to the path of lawful engagement and allow the constitutional mechanisms she once oversaw to function without interference.
#The Law is The Law!
Written by
Lewis Kwame Addo
Amsterdam
