Justice Torkornoo has been suspended pending the outcome of a committee investigation
Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo has justified her decision to travel on holiday with her spouse and daughter at the state’s expense.
In her response to petitions lodged for her removal from office, the Chief Justice denied allegations of misappropriating GH¢261,890 of public funds for private foreign travel with her husband and daughter.
According to the Chief Justice, who has been suspended by the president following the establishment of a prima facie case against her, the claim that her spouse and daughter were not entitled to have their travel funded by the Judicial Service is untrue and unfortunate within the context of her appointment letter and the Judicial Service Foreign Travel Policy.
“My appointment letter, which should have been included in the original bundle as Exhibit DO1, clearly outlines the terms of my appointment as Chief Justice. These terms include two round-trip tickets for official vacations, each capped at a maximum of 14 days. Paragraph B1 of the appointment letter specifies that travel expenses, hotel accommodation, and per diem for these holidays are to be borne by the Judicial Service,” she noted in her response.
She emphasised that the Judicial Service Policy on Foreign Travel, among other things, permits a Chief Justice to “undertake unlimited official travels with either his/her spouse or other person of his/her choice in a year, fully funded by the Judicial Service.”
It also states that when “accompanied by the spouse or other person, he/she shall travel on the same class of air ticket as the Chief Justice and shall be paid the equivalent of half the per diem paid to the Chief Justice.
“These policies, in place since 2010, explicitly authorise me to travel with my spouse or another designated person, such as my daughter, on official vacations.”
She argued that the decision to allow the Judicial Service to cover the expenses of her spouse and daughter was an exercise of her authorisation granted by the Policy on Foreign Travels by Head of the Judiciary and Superior Court Judges, as amended in 2019.
“Exhibit DO4 is a response provided by the Judicial Secretary to auditors seeking clarification on the expenditure for tickets purchased for my husband and daughter during my two holidays in 2023. Page 1 of Exhibit DO4 confirms that I opted to utilize the authorization in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Travel Policy to travel with my spouse on one occasion and my daughter on the second, in full compliance with my appointment terms. The Judicial Secretary’s responses to Observation 1 and Observation 2 in Exhibit DO4 further explain the expenditure, refuting the petitioner’s claim of misappropriation,” she stated.
Reported accounts of the petitions against the Chief Justice indicate an allegation of illegal payment of per diem and purchase of travel tickets for her relatives.
However, Justice Torkornoo argued in her response that she was not responsible for the purchase of flight tickets or payment of per diem for herself and individuals who travel with her.
“I wish to emphasise that, as Chief Justice, I neither purchase travel tickets nor determine the per diem issued to me or my accompanying aides, security, or designated persons. These are administered by the Judicial Secretary and the Director of Finance of the Judicial Service in accordance with rates set by the Article 71 Committee on Emoluments. I am not a signatory to any account and am therefore incapable of personally misappropriating public funds related to travel or per diem,” she noted.
She further denied failing to retire an amount of $9,589, being the balance of an imprest issued for her travel.
“The petitioner’s claim that I failed to retire imprest is untrue. I have attached evidence, signed by me and corroborated by the Judicial Secretary, showing that I spent $4,411 out of an imprest of $14,000 and retired the entirety of the remaining amount two days after returning from my journey. This documentation refutes the allegation and demonstrates adherence to financial accountability standards,” she said.
The Chief Justice maintained that her travel with her spouse and daughter during her official vacations is supported by the privileges and obligations outlined in her appointment letter and the Judicial Service’s travel policy.
“These are standard entitlements for the Chief Justice, akin to those provided to other heads of government, such as the President or Speaker of Parliament, under Article 57(2) of the 1992 Constitution.
“Can it be suggested, by any stretch of the imagination, that when the Chief Justice travels with a designated companion as per policy, this constitutes misconduct warranting removal from office? Would Ghanaians accept that the President or Speaker misappropriated state funds by traveling with their spouse or child on official vacations provided by their terms of appointment? Such a proposition would undermine the principles of our democracy and the meaning of misappropriation,” she added.
According to the Chief Justice, it would be absurd to claim that she has misappropriated funds when Judicial Service policy implementers are responsible for the purchase of flight tickets and payment of per diems for her official vacations.
“It is my firm belief that the nation would find the petitioner’s allegations—that the described acts constitute wrongdoing—unthinkable. These claims are not only baseless but also misrepresent the policies and procedures of the Judicial Service. I respectfully urge His Excellency the President and the eminent members of the Council of State to dismiss these allegations, as they do not warrant further consideration. The evidence provided, including Exhibits DO1, DO2, DO3, and DO4, clearly demonstrates my compliance with all applicable policies and refutes the petitioner’s claims,” her response concluded.
GA/AE
