“The situation I have been confronted with has shown me a module of injustice that I would never have thought possible if I had not been exposed to it.”—Her Ladyship Justice Gertrude Torkornoo (Suspended Chief Justice)
Ghana’s embattled Chief Justice, Her Ladyship Justice Gertrude Torkornoo—suspended by President Mahama by warrant after determining a prima facie case upon receipt of three petitions for her removal according to the Constitutional provisions of Article 146—took the podium to deliver an emotional appeal to the people of the Republic of Ghana on June 25, 2025, outlining her ordeal in the hearing of the allegations levelled against her for her removal. Her reasons for the “State of the Removal Address” were to let Ghanaians in on the ‘so called’ allegations in the petitions since they were already public, the perceived breaches and the break of the rule of justice in the removal process, and her resolve to never resign in the wake of threats and advise from well-wishers.
Some have suggested that the Chief Justice should not have addressed the public in the manner she did, as it contravened the rules governing the proceedings. Her Ladyship’s address nonetheless struck a chord. As she spoke, one could only think of the ordinary non-legal brain defendant on the ‘left side’ from the Bench view in the witness box with an ill-motivated defence lawyer. Yes, they will be led to the slaughter without knowing whether any due process in the Rules of Court have been breached. Such was the fate of many who linger within the walls of Ghana’s prisons—their only hope; the beam of light that shines through their cell windows each morning, signalling another day that will waste away. That light is not even a hope enough to cling on to.
In her address, she lamented that.
a. The 146 Committee failed to recognize her lawyer because she was absent, going ahead to arrange the hearing without her lawyer’s involvement.
b. The Committee, mandated to ‘inquire’ according to Article 146(7) has ditched the Commissions of Enquiry Practices and Procedure Rules, 2010 (CI 65) for the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47) in the absence of a CI on the Chief Justice removal process as it has chosen to conduct the hearing not as an inquiry but as a litigation; yet there’s flagrant disregard for the rules of court.
c. The Committee has failed to indicate the charges against her which she will need to defend; the committee has also failed to present to her formal copies of the petitions and the President’s prima facie determination at the hearing
d. The petitioners have been permitted not to testify; the petitions themselves have not been admitted into evidence; hence the petitioners cannot be cross-examined.
e. Only subpoenaed public officials with less knowledge of the petitions are called in as witnesses.
f. She has been barred from attending the hearing with emotional support—family or loved ones—and is subjected to thorough search in violations of protocols befitting the high office of a Chief Justice of a democratic state.
g. The Adu Lodge facility chosen for the hearing bears a stark reminder in the planning of the killing of his uncle, Major Sam Acquah together with the 3 ‘martyrs of the rule of law’—the murdered High Court Justices—in 1982.
h. The motivation for her removal is political as she has heard from sections of the media about a statement made by the government in 2022 when it was in opposition.
Indeed, IMANI Center for Policy and Analysis in its Criticality Analysis of Governance Issues (CAGI) of March 23-28, 2025, reported on the removal petitions against the Chief Justice that,
“The unfolding petition process against Ghana’s Chief Justice encapsulates a complex interplay between constitutional mandates, the evidentiary standards of a prima facie case, and emerging political influences.”
The CAGI further highlighted that, what complicates the narrative further is the 2022 video evidence where the current president—then a leading candidate—asserted that,
“Unfortunately, we have no hope that the current leadership of our judiciary can lead such a process of change. We can only hope that a new Chief Justice will lead the process to repair the broken image that our judiciary has acquired over the last few years.”
Speaking on the allegations in the petitions, Her Ladyship explained that.
a. She transferred the case involving Daniel Ofori (a petitioner) because the presiding judge had a family crisis of which the judge had to travel outside the country for an extended period.
b. Travel allegations and supposed misappropriation of funds levelled against her were frivolous as per the Judicial Service Travel Policy, she is allowed to travel on vacation two times per year with one other person who is also entitled to per diem. So, she did on one occasion with her husband and the other with her daughter, both of which she retired the impress upon her return.
c. Most of the allegations levelled against her in the petitions were mainly case related which according to her, she is indemnified according to Article 127; and all her administration decisions were within the confines of the law, especially on her recommendation judges for appointment to the Supreme Court, citing
d. There is a conflict of interest on Justice Pwamang (JSC) chairing the hearing committee as in the critical cases she is blamed to have ruled against Daniel Ofori, Pwamang (JSC) who was also a panel judge had ruled in favour of Daniel Ofori. In essence, it is Daniel Ofori’s preferred judge who now chairs her removal process based on his petition against her.
The government spokesperson, Hon. Felix Ofosu Kwakye (MP) took to the Jubilee House Press Conference to clarify certain claims by the Chief Justice in her press briefing. He explained that.
a. The President has since the beginning of the process breached no Constitutional provision; and that the President had followed what the law stipulates in the removal of the Chief Justice.
b. It was the committee that requested the hearing venue, Adu Lodge, and not the government or the President. They only granted the venue as it provided enhanced security for all parties and certainly not meant to intimidate.
c. Since the process was now in the hands of the committee, certain claims made by Her Ladyship during her press briefing, he could breach the in-camera provision of the hearing should he comment on them.
With a high-profile unprecedented case like the removal process of the Chief Justice, it is the usual expectation that the process will be fair. Whereas the Constitution explains the process, there is no provision that describes the procedure. Therefore, the committee’s decision to make the removal process a litigation is in breach of Article 146(7). Even so, the committee’s failure to follow CI 47 judiciously as the petitions are not admitted into evidence and the petitioners exempted to testify are also a breach of the rules of court.
Truly, the President may not have violated any Constitutional provisions in Article 146, however, it does not also mean that the actions of the committee and the procedures it is following may not be contravening the rules of court and constituting an infringement on the rights and dignity of Her Ladyship.
Every Ghanaian be Chief Justice, judge, lawyer or student of the law must speak up about injustice any time it occurs- such as the SALL debacle, which was described as a ‘cardinal sin.’ It should not have taken the Chief Justice to be on the ‘left side’ to realise something must be wrong. If she only knew that tables turn, sooner or later, perhaps she would have dedicated her tenure to correct infractions in the administration of justice in her beloved country. Wish her the best.
Recommendations
In light of the troubling procedural lapses and emotional toll detailed by the Chief Justice, Ghanaians must demand clarity, consistency, and compassion in the administration of justice at all levels. Justice cannot be a shield reserved for the powerful nor a lament only when the gavel turns inward. Judges and judicial officers must see their role not merely as custodians of legal texts but as guardians against systemic injustice—lest the very flaws they overlook today return to haunt them in moments of personal crisis. It must not take the threat of removal for our leaders on the Bench to confront the brokenness within the system they serve. This moment calls not just for legal compliance, but for moral courage—one that reaffirms our collective commitment to due process, human dignity, and institutional fairness. Citizens, civil society, and legal minds alike must seize this opportunity to push for codified procedures in high-level removals and safeguard the independence of the judiciary against politicization. Justice must not only be inscribed in our Constitution—it must be etched in our daily practice, with vigilance, empathy, and unwavering resolve.
