The suspension of Ghana’s Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo in April 2025 has provoked intense constitutional debate, eliciting polarised reactions across political, legal, and civil society spheres. However, from a public case standpoint—where institutional trust, constitutional compliance, and democratic resilience are essential—the decision to suspend the Chief Justice was not only justifiable but also necessary.
The two sides of democratic governance rest on judicial independence and accountability. As E. M. Forster aptly argued in the twentieth century on his theory of Democracy, Forster opined that “the two cheers for Democracy are, one, it admits variety and two, it permits criticism.” Admittedly, a public case is fundamentally about balancing interests for the public good. In judicial governance, this balance lies between independence and accountability.
While independence safeguards judges from political interference, accountability ensures that no one including the Chief Justice—is above the law. So, the suspended Chief Justice was wrong to raise the alarm bells over her suspension, as it was part of the democratic exercise enjoyed by the very same constitution that was used to adjudicate cases of the removal of previous commissioners, such as Madam Charlotte Osei.
Article 146 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution lays out a clear, procedural mechanism for investigating alleged judicial misconduct. The suspension of a judge pending a full inquiry is part of that mechanism, not a deviation from due process, but an integral component of it. It exists to preserve institutional legitimacy during an investigation and ensure that the outcome—whether exoneration or removal—is not tainted by procedural compromise or perceived bias.
Far from being an executive overreach, Chief Justice Torkornoo’s suspension was carried out in strict alignment with the constitutional process: Factually, petitions were submitted. A prima facie case was determined after consultation with the Council of State. A five-member inquiry committee was established. The Chief Justice was lawfully suspended pending its report. Public policy demands fidelity to such frameworks, not personalities.
It can also be argued that in some advanced democracies, the precedence of suspending a judge has established the global priority of integrity in this process. While Ghana is currently experiencing the suspension of its chief justice, globally, the judiciaries have not hesitated to discipline even their highest-ranking members when the integrity of the institution is at risk.
In South Africa, Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe was suspended following allegations of attempting to improperly influence Constitutional Court judges. The process, carried out under the Judicial Services Commission Act, was praised for maintaining the integrity of the judiciary while upholding procedural fairness. President Cyril Ramaphosa formally suspended him in December 2022, based on a recommendation from the South African Judicial Service Commission (JSC).
In the year 2018, in the United States of America, the entire West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals faced impeachment proceedings for financial misconduct. Though controversial, the legislature’s action was driven by the need to restore public trust and enforce oversight over even the most senior judges. Similarly, in both India and Pakistan, Chief justices have faced parliamentary or executive scrutiny under constitutional frameworks when their conduct raised public concern, affirming the principle that office does not confer immunity.
In the case of Pakistan in 2007, a suspended Chief Justice was reinstated after an investigation and expediting the legal process. These examples reflect an emerging consensus in democratic governance: accountability mechanisms must be enforceable at the highest levels, or public institutions risk decay from within.
Transparency vs. Process Integrity
Critics have pointed to a perceived lack of transparency in the Torkornoo case. While transparency is a critical value in democratic governance, procedural integrity must not be sacrificed for public theatre. In many jurisdictions, preliminary judicial disciplinary proceedings are confidential to protect both the individual’s reputation and the legitimacy of the process. It is essential, therefore, that calls for transparency do not undermine constitutionally mandated confidentiality or substitute political outcry for legal procedure. The Chief Justice has the right to challenge the process, and she is doing so through a judicial review petition.
But her right to contest does not negate the state’s responsibility to investigate. For public policy and good governance practitioners, the central concern is institutional trust. Judicial legitimacy is not simply about who occupies the bench—it is about whether the public believes the judiciary is governed by rules rather than relationships.
The suspension of the Chief Justice must be respected by all, and it must cease to be a media circus. When credible allegations surface, and the state hesitates to act, it communicates institutional fragility. On the other hand, a principled, constitutional response—even when politically inconvenient—signals strength. By initiating the inquiry under Article 146, Ghana’s executive has shown that no constitutional office is immune to scrutiny, a fundamental requirement of good governance.
Rather than interpreting the suspension as a political attack, civil society and public policy advocates should focus on:
• Ensuring the inquiry committee remains independent and free of external
interference.
• Monitoring timelines and procedural fairness to prevent undue delay.
• Advocating long-term judicial reforms, such as codified disciplinary guidelines, a public
judicial ethics code, and stronger institutional autonomy for the Judicial Council.
If reforms emerge from this moment, regardless of the outcome of the inquiry, the suspension will have served a higher democratic purpose. In conclusion, as a nation, we must appreciate that justice must be institutional, not personal. Ghana is not on trial—the strength of its institutions is. The Chief Justice’s suspension is a test of how democracies handle allegations of high-level misconduct without collapsing into partisanship or paralysis.
The choice to suspend was difficult. But it was also constitutional, prudent, and consistent with international norms. Ghana must now let the inquiry unfold, respecting both due process and the principle that no individual—no matter how revered—can be greater than the institutions they serve.
God bless our homeland, Ghana!
