Speaking on Adom FM’s morning show, Dwaso Nsem, he stressed that the constitution should not be treated as “mere letters,” cautioning that shortcuts in due process could have long-term implications.

“If you look at the Chief Justice issue, it was not only the Minority speaking about it. Former Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo also raised concerns,” he said.

“The route we are taking is not clear, and it will affect us in the long run. The constitution is not just letters; we should not set a dangerous precedent.”

Mr. Baffour Awuah argued that the grounds on which Justice Torkornoo was removed were questionable, insisting that proper investigations and an Auditor-General’s report should have preceded any parliamentary action. He noted that the absence of adverse findings in the report made her dismissal particularly troubling.

He also expressed concern over increasing executive interference in the judiciary and called for comprehensive reforms to strengthen judicial independence.

“I feel we need serious reform in our judiciary system as a country, away from the hands of the executive. The interference is real,” he stated.

Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie was sworn in as the new Chief Justice on November 17, 2025, following the removal of Justice Torkornoo in September after a committee cited stated grounds of misbehavior.

READ ALSO:

• Duke of Edinburgh’s visit shows Ghana’s commitment to scaling play-based learning – Apaak
• Bekwai Circuit Court jails two young men for 35 years over robbery
• Minority rejects High Court ruling on Kpandai parliamentary election

In a yet-to-be-aired interview with JoyNews’ Elton Brobbey, Justice Atuguba said the NPP cannot credibly accuse President John Mahama of political interference, given its own record of removing top officials under similar constitutional provisions.

“Don’t forget that Charlotte Osei and the CHRAJ Commissioner, one lady, [Madam Lamptey], it was under the same conditions, the same provisions. Stated misbehaviour.

“And is it not these people who did it? At that time, did they have trouble with what stated misbehaviour is? Why, suddenly, when their appointee is involved in the same thing, they say Hey,” he questioned.

Justice Atuguba was reacting to the heated political fallout following the Article 146 Committee’s recommendation and President Mahama’s subsequent decision to remove Chief Justice Torkornoo.

Some persons in the NPP have suggested that the party will reverse the decision and have threatened to take similar action against judicial officials should it return to power, a stance Justice Atuguba condemned as dangerous and politically reckless.

“This type of thing, is it commendable? That means they will do it irrespective of the performance of the next Chief Justice. That is the mindset of some of these politicians. Some don’t care. It’s just the power they want and their way,” he stated.

He rejected suggestions that President Mahama’s action was part of a premeditated plan to reset the judiciary, arguing instead that any political party has the right to implement reforms promised in its manifesto.

“When parties are contesting elections, don’t they have their manifestos as to what they will come and do when elected into power? So, when they are elected and they are implementing the manifesto, what’s wrong with it? It is premeditated and endorsed by the voters,” he argued.

“You mean somebody should just come to power without any programme for running the country? The important question is not when. I remember, before the elections, I used to say here that the judiciary needed restructuring. And after the election, I said it.

Justice Atuguba also dismissed calls for constitutional amendments to clarify the definition of “stated misbehaviour,” insisting the current provisions are clear enough and have been consistently applied in the past.

On claims that the Chief Justice’s removal amounts to political revenge, he was emphatic: “Payback is something that cannot be justified. But if it is justified, where is the payback? Or if it’s a payback, it’s correct payback.”

His comments highlight the growing tensions between the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the opposition NPP over judicial independence, as the fallout from the Chief Justice’s removal continues to stir Ghana’s political landscape.

Source: Myjoyonline

ALSO READ:

• Chief Justice Torkornoo asked Mahama to let her retire with benefits – Amaliba reveals

• Chief Justice Torkornoo’s misconduct could have led to jail in other countries – Franklin…

The Vice Chairman of the Subsidiary Legislation Committee and a member of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee of Parliament raised this concern on JoyNews’ Newsfile.

He insisted that public officers, including judges, must be held to clear and predetermined standards, not ad hoc interpretations.

“Standards are predetermined; they are not ad hoc. So, if we are going to hold our Chief Justice and justices of the Superior Court to standards, they should be set standards which are predefined. What is stated misbehaviour? It’s still not known,” he argued.

His remarks come against the backdrop of President John Mahama removing Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo from office with immediate effect, following recommendations from a constitutional committee set up under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.

The decision came barely hours after the President received the committee’s report on a petition filed by Ghanaian citizen Daniel Ofori — one of three petitions submitted against the Chief Justice. After reviewing testimonies and evidence, the five-member panel concluded that grounds of “stated misbehaviour” under Article 146(1) had been established and recommended her removal.

He also challenged claims of financial misconduct, stressing that the Chief Justice is not a spending officer and follows laid-down procedures to access funds.

“How do you say this is embezzlement? The Chief Justice has to apply for funds, and her applications go through established procedures. When audit queries were raised, her explanations were accepted by the auditors. By no stretch of the imagination can this be called embezzlement,” he said.

Mr. Awuah cited constitutional provisions, arguing that the propriety of public expenditure is the sole mandate of the Auditor-General. Since the Auditor-General had not found wrongdoing, he questioned the basis for concluding that the Chief Justice had engaged in misconduct.

“Where is the wrongdoing? How does she commit an error by applying and going through the procedure to obtain expenses? I think that decision is so embarrassing, to say the least. Yes, let’s hold our judges and Chief Justice to a higher standard, but the standard ought to be defined,” he stressed.

Source: Myjoyonline

ALSO READ:

• Former Chief Justice consoles Gertrude Torkornoo after removal from office

• Sophia Akuffo wades into Gertrude Torkornoo’s removal as Chief Justice 

• Why Torkornoo’s reinstatement was impossible – Lawyer

Noting that the president and other leading figures of the NDC had openly signalled their intention to do so before coming to power in 2025.

“Certainly for me, I wasn’t surprised because they stated it clearly before the election that they would do that, and they have done it,” he said on JoyNews’ AM Show on Wednesday, September 3.

President John Mahama, on Monday, September 1, removed Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo from office with immediate effect on grounds of stated misbehaviour.

This follows recommendations from a constitutional committee set up under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.

Prof. Agyeman-Duah stressed that while the move was expected, it raises serious concerns about the balance of powers in Ghana’s governance architecture.

“But I am looking at the replications, how this really affects the balance of power amongst the three key institutions of governance, and the independence that they are supposed to have to ensure effective checks and balances.”

He added that, “If the Executive decided to attack one, then there is a danger there.”

Source: Albert Kuzor

ALSO READ:

• Former Chief Justice consoles Gertrude Torkornoo after removal from office

• Sophia Akuffo wades into Gertrude Torkornoo’s removal as Chief Justice 

Speaking in an interview with Accra-based TV3, the Council of State member argued that the proceedings were handled unfairly.

“My honest and candid view is that this has so weakened the institution of the judiciary,” she said. “She did not get a fair trial. Even though it is not a trial strictly speaking, it was handled as though it were a treason trial.”

Justice Torkornoo’s removal was announced on Monday, September 1, in a statement issued by the Minister of Government Communications.

According to the statement, President John Dramani Mahama, acting under Article 146(9) of the 1992 Constitution, dismissed the Chief Justice after reviewing the findings of a committee set up to investigate petitions for her removal.

The committee found grounds of “stated misbehaviour” under Article 146(1) and recommended her removal—a recommendation the President was constitutionally obliged to follow.

Her dismissal follows months of proceedings triggered by three separate petitions. A prima facie case was established in April, leading to her suspension in consultation with the Council of State.

The five-member inquiry committee was chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, with members including former Auditor-General Daniel Yaw Domelevo, Major Flora Bazaanura Dalugo of the Ghana Armed Forces, and Professor James Sefah Dzisah of the University of Ghana.

Presenting the report to the President, Justice Pwamang explained that the panel’s mandate under Article 146(7) and (8) was to investigate the petitions in-camera, give the respondent an opportunity to defend herself, and make recommendations to the President.

Justice Torkornoo’s removal has since sparked debate within the legal fraternity, with some describing it as a test of Ghana’s democratic and judicial resilience.

Source: AdomOnline

ALSO READ:

• Minority Leader questions removal of Chief Justice Torkornoo

• Why Torkornoo’s reinstatement was impossible – Lawyer

Speaking on The Pulse on JoyNews, he said her conduct worsened her case.

“The CJ did not give herself any chance to be heard appropriately. The confrontational attitude she took made it impossible for her to resume her official duties. She was so abrasive, taking the government here and there, going to ECOWAS,” he explained.

Ansa-Asare added that the matter was constitutional and required cooperation rather than resistance.

“This simple constitutional matter needed cooperation with the committee so that, at the end of the day, we would all be living witnesses to whether there was any merit in the petitions,” he said.

He stressed that if the Chief Justice herself did not understand the laid-down processes, it undermined her claims of rights violations.

“If you allege that your constitutional rights are being violated, and you, as head of the judiciary, do not understand the ramifications of the Chief Justice removal process, you shoot yourself in the foot,” Ansa-Asare asserted.

He further noted that the constitutional provisions had been followed, leaving no reason for disappointment.

“I don’t think we should be sad about it; we should be happy that the constitution is working. This is a democracy, and if the President has to act, every step he takes must be in accordance with the constitution. So far, I am yet to be convinced that the President contravened constitutional processes,” he added.

President John Mahama on Monday, September 1, removed Mrs. Torkornoo from office with immediate effect on grounds of stated misbehaviour, following recommendations from a constitutional committee set up under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution. The committee’s inquiry was in response to a petition filed by citizen Daniel Ofori, one of three petitions submitted.

Source: Clara Seshie

ALSO READ:

• Nobody should think this is the end – Dafeamekpor on Torkornoo’s removal

• Gertrude Torkornoo was punished for following the rules – Former AG fires back

Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Monday, Ayikoi Otoo said the committee failed to take into account the travel policy that was tendered as part of her defence.

According to him, Justice Torkornoo did nothing wrong by requesting to go on a regular vacation in line with her entitlements.

“When these entitlements come, it is not for you to determine anything. You are just to determine whether you want to travel. So when you tell them that I intend to take my vacation in Arusha, Tanzania, then the officers will work on whatever is your entitlement and bring it to you. This is nothing new,” he explained, stressing that the Chief Justice did not allocate allowances herself but relied on established procedures.

Mr. Otoo further argued that the committee ignored long-standing practice, noting that previous Chief Justices had travelled with a person of their choice when they had no spouse.

“There is a travel policy of the judiciary, but they never referred to it. And that travel policy, the committee didn’t refer to it, although we tendered it. She’s entitled to travel with one person of her own choice, and she chose to do this,” he said.

Dismissing claims of misappropriation, the former Attorney General insisted that Justice Torkornoo merely received what she was due under the conditions of service.

“What wrong did the Chief Justice commit? Was she the one who asked that she should be given travel expenses? Is she not entitled to the travel expenses? … Assuming it was wrongly given to you, is that not why you have an audit? Is it not the case for auditors to say that we think you should be surcharged with a certain amount which you took unlawfully? Is it a ground for removal?” he questioned.

Mr. Otoo also stressed that responsibility for financial authorisations rested with the Judicial Secretary as the spending officer, not the Chief Justice.

Expressing his disappointment in the committee’s work, he singled out former Auditor-General Daniel Domelevo.

“I’m surprised Domelevo was on it. He sat through it. He heard us. We made presentations to him. And he, in the midst of all this, in the face of all this, comes out to say that she has misappropriated money. Which money?” he asked.

Source: Abubakar Ibrahim

ALSO READ:

• Committee probing Chief Justice’s suspension adjourns second petition hearing

• Mahama presented with committee report on suspended Chief Justice Torkornoo petitions

The action, which took place on September 1, 2025, was described by Mr. Tuah-Yeboah, who served under the Akufo-Addo administration, as an “unholy assault on the independence of the judiciary” that sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

The President acted following the recommendation of an Article 146 Committee, established under Ghana’s Constitution to investigate petitions for the removal of a Chief Justice. A petition filed by citizen Daniel Ofori formed the basis for the inquiry, with the committee ultimately finding “stated misbehaviour.”

Speaking on JoyNews’ The Pulse, Mr. Tuah-Yeboah warned that the outcome has far-reaching consequences for the judiciary. “I’m sad because this is an unholy assault on the independence of the judiciary. This has far-reaching consequences moving into the future,” he said. “Whoever sits in that office should also be thinking about the future implications. The possibility of flimsy petitions being used to remove you is very high.”

He added that he was not surprised by the development, noting it fulfilled a campaign promise by President Mahama. “This is a clear case where a political actor, before elections, campaigned on the promise to remove a Chief Justice; upon assuming office, had some people file for the removal, and today the result. That’s why I’m sad but not surprised,” he said.

The removal of Chief Justice Torkornoo marks a historic moment in Ghana’s Fourth Republic, highlighting the political tensions that can influence the constitutional process of removing a Superior Court Justice, while also rekindling debates about judicial independence and the checks and balances between Ghana’s executive and judicial arms.

Source: MyJoyOnline

ALSO READ:

• Mahama would have set a terrible precedent if… – Kwakye Ofosu on Torkornoo’s removal

• Torkornoo’s removal adhered to constitutional provisions – Prof Appiagyei-Atua

Speaking in an interview on Ekosii Sen on Asempa FM, Mr. Tobbin described the development as a dangerous precedent that undermines judicial independence and erodes public confidence in the rule of law.

“It is surprising how Mahama is ruling this country. Things are not going well. The only institution Ghanaians believed could deliver fairness has now been tampered with by removing the Chief Justice,” he lamented.

The Anyaa-Sowutuom legislator alleged that the allegations levelled against Justice Torkornoo were “fraudulent” and politically motivated. He argued that the decision could push the country backwards rather than forward.

“When the NPP comes to power by God’s will, whoever President Mahama appoints as Chief Justice, we will also remove the person. Is that how we want to move forward as a country or backwards?” he questioned.

Mr. Tobbin further warned that the decision could create fear within the judiciary, making judges apprehensive about presiding over sensitive cases.

“Now judges may sit in fear because if a ruling does not go in the President’s favour, they risk being removed,” he added.

Chief Justice Torkornoo was removed from office on September 1, 2025, after a Committee of Inquiry chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Pwamang recommended her dismissal for stated misbehaviour.

The Committee was established under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution following a petition against her after her suspension on April 22, 2025.

President Mahama, bound by Article 146(9), accepted the Committee’s recommendation, making Justice Torkornoo the first Chief Justice to be removed under this constitutional provision.

The decision has divided opinion, with government officials defending the process as due diligence, while opposition figures argue it undermines judicial independence.

Source: Gertrude Otchere

ALSO READ:

• Mahama sacks Gertrude Torkornoo as Chief Justice

• Mahama would have set a terrible precedent if… – Kwakye Ofosu on Torkornoo’s removal

Known popularly as General Mosquito, Mr. Nketia explained that the executive has not taken any action to oust the Chief Justice but is focused on fulfilling its constitutional mandate.

“The executive has done nothing regarding the removal of the Chief Justice,” he told Accra-based Citi TV. “If anything at all, the executive is only fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities. To my knowledge, there has been no deliberate move to push her out.”

His comments come amid public debate over perceived tensions between the judiciary and other state institutions. Addressing these concerns, Mr. Nketia emphasized that judicial independence is not under threat.

“The judiciary is not being attacked. What we are witnessing is a reform of state institutions,” he said. “Where there are challenges within the judiciary, reforms are necessary to ensure the institution can properly discharge its constitutional role.”

He added that institutional reforms are essential for strengthening democracy, noting that each arm of government must operate effectively within its constitutional boundaries.

On April 22, 2025, President John Dramani Mahama suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo after a prima facie case was established from three petitions alleging misconduct and incompetence.

Under Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution, the president may suspend a Supreme Court judge upon such a case and, in consultation with the Council of State, appoint a committee to investigate. Following this provision, President Mahama set up a five-member panel chaired by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, with members including Justice Samuel Adibu-Asiedu, former Auditor-General Daniel Yaw Domelevo, Major Flora Bazaanura Dalugo, and Professor James Sefah-Dzisah.

Justice Torkornoo is currently challenging her suspension and potential removal at the ECOWAS Court of Justice. She has stated that resignation is not an option and intends to pursue all legal avenues to seek justice.

Source: Adomonline

ALSO READ:

• Napo sends important message over suspension of Chief Justice Torkornoo [Listen]

• I will marshal every effort to answer my removal process — Justice Torkornoo

The plea was made on Friday, June 28, during a memorial service commemorating the 42nd anniversary of the abduction and murder of three High Court judges and a retired army officer.

Delivering a message at the event, GBA President Efua Ghartey said the association, along with other legal bodies—including the Commonwealth Lawyers Association and the Commonwealth Magistrates and Judges Association—has consistently expressed concern about the ongoing removal proceedings against Justice Torkornoo.

“The Ghana Bar Association as well as other legal associations, both local and international, have made their voices heard on the ongoing process for the removal of the Chief Justice of Ghana, Her Ladyship Justice Gertrude Torkornoo,” she said.

She emphasized that any Superior Court judge deserves to be “well apprised of the entire process” before facing disciplinary action, stressing that defending the judiciary’s independence is a duty the Bar will not relinquish.

“In the spirit of fairness, rising to the defense of the judiciary’s independence is the mandate of the Ghana Bar Association, and this is not personality-driven,” she added.

The GBA’s call comes days after Justice Torkornoo publicly condemned her suspension as a siege on the judiciary, warning of politically driven attacks on the country’s legal institutions.

Mrs Ghartey added, “On this day that we meet to honour the memory of the martyrs of the rule of law, let us resolve as a nation to do ourselves proud and humbly walk away from settling scores endlessly, as we are one nation with one destiny.”

She urged reconsideration of the suspension, describing it as a move that “sets a poor precedent,” and said the Bar was confident such calls would “not go unheeded.”

“We yearn for peace and strive for justice,” the GBA President concluded.

Justice Gertrude Torkornoo was suspended in April 2025 following petitions for her removal from office, a process that has since stirred wide public debate.

ALSO READ:

• Torkornoo’s removal case premeditated – Alhassan Tampuli

• If Torkornoo is cited for contempt, she brought it upon herself – Lawyer

He accused her of prejudicing the case’s outcome and failing to uphold judicial standards.

Ahmed made these remarks during a panel discussion on JoyNews’ Newsfile on Saturday, where he argued that Justice Torkornoo’s press conference was improper, unconstitutional, and politically motivated.

Ahmed expressed disappointment in the suspended Chief Justice’s conduct, stating that as the nation’s top judicial officer, she should have respected legal processes rather than taking her grievances to the public.

“For me, she’s not setting any good example for anybody to follow,” Mr Ahmed said.

“She’s a Chief Justice. She must vindicate, validate, respect, and make sure the law works in our country.”

He argued that if Justice Torkornoo believed her rights were being violated, she should have pursued legal avenues rather than presenting a “one-sided story” to the public.

Ahmed emphasized that the proper forum for Justice Torkornoo to defend herself was before the impeachment committee, not in the media.

“Did you hear the side of the committee? You don’t go to the public to present an ongoing case,” he said. “You are seeking to do politics, you are seeking to prejudice the outcome of the case, which to me is not constitutional. It is not lawful, it is wrongful for her to do that.”

His comments align with earlier criticisms from legal practitioners Victoria Bright and Senyo Hosi, who also condemned Justice Torkornoo’s press conference as a breach of Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, which mandates that such proceedings be conducted in camera.

Ahmed further argued that the public cannot fairly assess the case based solely on Justice Torkornoo’s statements, as the committee’s perspective remains unheard.

“We need to see the two sides to make an informed decision,” he said. “I will not accept her one-sided information, accusations that she made, to make an informed decision on this matter.”

ALSO READ:

• I’ve been threatened to resign or suffer harm – Torkornoo

• Suspended CJ Torkornoo decries ‘escalating violations’ in ongoing inquiry

ALSO READ:

• Embattled Chief Justice files injunction against committee probing her removal

• Chief Justice Torkornoo begs Supreme Court to halt removal process

Mr. Adofo claimed the apex court appears divided, pointing to a possible conflict of interest.

In an interview on Adom FM’s Dwaso Nsem, he asserted that some members of the Supreme Court panel seem to be pushing for Justice Torkornoo’s reinstatement.

However, another group of three justices appears determined to see Justice Torkornoo removed and wants to dismiss any cases challenging her suspension or removal.

“It appears the Supreme Court is divided based on some rulings that have come. Looking at the panel — Acting Chief Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, Amadu Tanko, and Yonny Kulendi, a fantastic lawyer — it seems they have decided to dismiss every case,” he stated.

The apex court has recently dismissed about three cases seeking to halt the suspension and removal of Justice Torkornoo.

The latest case was filed by the Centre for Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems (CenCES).

In a 4–1 majority decision on Wednesday, May 21, a five-member panel comprising Justices Paul Baffoe-Bonnie (Presiding), Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, Yonny Kulendi, and Henry Anthony Kwofie ruled against the case, while Justice Yaw Asare Darko dissented.

ALSO READ:

• Supreme Court dismisses CSO’s case against Chief Justice’s suspension
• Three Supreme Court judges discussed CJ’s removal in a restaurant – NPP Man alleges…

• Going to Supreme Court a provocation of Committee – Ansa-Asare blasts Torkornoo

In a petition addressed to President John Mahama, the former NPP Adentan parliamentary aspirant claimed he witnessed three Supreme Court Justices—including two members of the committee—having dinner at a restaurant in Accra.

Speaking in an interview on Asempa FM’s Ekosii Sen, Kumi alleged that the justices were discussing matters related to the ongoing petition and said he has evidence to support his claims.

He named the individuals as the Chairman of the committee, Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, and Justice Yonny Kulendi.

“The evidence is readily available, and there are witnesses also ready to testify. The counsel of one of the petitioners, Thaddeus Sory, who was also at the restaurant, later joined the conversation,” he stated.

Kumi claimed that the meeting occurred between 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on May 15, 2025, and argued that the involvement of these individuals compromises the credibility of the committee.

“If we have matters involving the removal of a Chief Justice—which is a constitutional issue—some of these things must be clearly scrutinised so the process does not become a sham,” he said.

According to him, all four individuals present at the dinner hold critical roles in the petition process and their private engagement raises questions about fairness and impartiality.

ALSO READ:

• CSO files Supreme Court suit to stop Chief Justice removal

• Ag. Chief Justice didn’t err for his role in Torkornoo’s case – Ansa-Asare

According to the group, the suspension of the Chief Justice by President John Mahama violates key provisions of the 1992 Constitution, particularly Articles 17(1)–(3), 23, 296, and 146(1)–(4) and (6).

They argue that the procedure lacked due process and failed to uphold the principles of fairness, non-discrimination, and lawful administrative conduct as enshrined in the Constitution.

Consequently, the group is asking the Supreme Court to declare that the President’s response to the three petitions seeking the Chief Justice’s removal was unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, a five-member committee established by President Mahama to probe the case is set to commence hearings today, Thursday, May 15.

The committee, chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, was constituted in accordance with Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution.

Its establishment followed a determination of a prima facie case against the Chief Justice and was undertaken in consultation with the Council of State.

The committee is expected to convene three times a week and, upon completion of its work, present its findings and recommendations to the President.

Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo is currently under investigation following five separate petitions alleging misconduct.

In response, President Mahama, after seeking advice from the Council of State, suspended Justice Torkornoo and set up a five-member panel to conduct a detailed inquiry into the allegations.

ALSO READ:

• Committee probing Chief Justice’s removal to begin hearings today

• All justices stand to benefit from Torkornoo’s removal – Ansa-Asare

The committee, chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, was established in accordance with Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution, following a prima facie determination against the Chief Justice in consultation with the Council of State.

Other members include Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, also of the Supreme Court; Daniel Yaw Domelevo, former Auditor-General; Major Flora Bazwaanura Dalugo of the Ghana Armed Forces; and Professor James Sefah Dzisah, Associate Professor at the University of Ghana.

The committee is expected to meet three times a week and will present its findings and recommendations to the President upon concluding its work.

Chief Justice Torkornoo is currently facing five separate petitions alleging misconduct. In response, President Mahama, after consulting with the Council of State, suspended her from office and tasked the committee with conducting a thorough investigation into the allegations.

ALSO READ:

• Suspension of Chief Justice a charade to remove her – Godfred Dame tells Supreme…

• Salam Mustapha vows NPP will remove any Chief Justice appointed by Mahama

According to him, all justices of the apex court potentially stand to benefit from the Chief Justice’s removal, not just the Acting Chief Justice, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie.

His comments come in response to an objection raised by former Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame, who argued that it was improper and without precedent for an Acting Chief Justice to empanel and preside over a case directly involving the substantive Chief Justice.

The Supreme Court, however, unanimously dismissed the objection after a brief recess, allowing the proceedings to continue under Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s leadership.

Speaking in an interview on Joy FM’s Top Story on Tuesday, May 6, Mr. Ansa-Asare argued that it is misleading to single out Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, as the potential benefit from the Chief Justice’s removal extends to all members of the Supreme Court.

“Removing the head, who is imbued with constitutional wisdom and the nuances of justice administration, merely because the person stands to benefit, is not justifiable. All the justices of the Supreme Court stand to benefit from the removal of the Chief Justice. Once you are a Justice of the Supreme Court, you are eligible for consideration for the top job,” he explained.

He added that even a High Court judge could be appointed Chief Justice if deemed fit by the President, given the constitutional flexibility provided under Article 144 of the 1992 Constitution. However, in practice, the most senior justice is typically considered.

Meanwhile, in a significant ruling on Tuesday, the Supreme Court, by a 3–2 majority decision, dismissed an application seeking an injunction against proceedings to consider petitions for the removal of Chief Justice Torkornoo.

Justices Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu and Ernest Gaewu dissented, while the majority held that the petitions should proceed.

The Court has announced that the full reasoning behind its decision will be made public on May 21, 2025.

ALSO READ:

• Ag. Chief Justice didn’t err for his role in Torkornoo’s case – Ansa-Asare

• Supreme Court dismisses Dame’s objection to Ag. CJ in Torkornoo case

His comments followed a press briefing by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) on Wednesday, during which the party urged judges to resist any unlawful attempt to remove the Chief Justice.

Speaking on JoyNews, Mr. Awuah urged all stakeholders, particularly those in authority, to tread carefully when dealing with matters concerning the judiciary, especially the office of the Chief Justice.

He emphasized that the judiciary is a crucial arm of government meant to be non-partisan and impartial.

“When it comes to matters of the judiciary, they are supposed to stand in the middle and hold the scale balanced,” he said. “We must all ensure that this independence is maintained and not undermined, either through politicization or intimidation.”

Mr. Awuah acknowledged that the President has constitutional power to act on petitions against the Chief Justice but warned that such power must be exercised with great caution.

“It’s true the Constitution allows the President to act on a petition, but it is not a decision to be taken lightly. If care is not taken, the judiciary will become a subsidiary of the executive where judges will labor under the fear of being removed from office. If that happens, we are all in trouble,” he explained.

The MP also raised concerns about the vague nature of some of the constitutional grounds for removing a Chief Justice, particularly the term “stated misbehaviour.”

“To me, respectfully, it is very ambiguous because it does not specify what amounts to stated misbehaviour. It is for the Council of State, together with the President, to decide whether a particular petition satisfies the ground of stated misbehaviour and whether a prima facie charge has been established,” he said.

Mr. Awuah urged all right-thinking members of society to insist on due process and caution, especially when the grounds for removal may not be strong enough.

“All we are saying is that if there aren’t very serious grounds, let’s tread with caution,” he added.

ALSO READ:

• Chief Justice would have to be suspended if… – Inusah Fuseini [Audio]

• We won’t allow Mahama to remove Chief Justice – PNP declares

According to the findings, 52% of voters support her removal, while only 20% oppose it. Additionally, 18% of respondents were neutral, and 10% expressed no opinion.

The poll indicates that a significant proportion of voters from most regions, excluding Ahafo and Upper East, support the Chief Justice’s removal.

In the Greater Accra region, 58% of voters expressed support, with 16% opposing. The Ashanti region saw 37% in favour of her removal, while 32% opposed it. In the Central region, 51% supported her removal, with 16% opposed.

Support for the removal of the Chief Justice was also found across all levels of education. Among individuals with Junior High School (JHS) education, 57% expressed support, compared to 17% who opposed. Among those with Senior High School (SHS) education, 50% supported her removal, while 21% opposed it. Among tertiary-educated individuals, 54% supported her removal, while 18% opposed it. Notably, those with no formal education were divided, with 37% in favour and 30% against her removal.

The poll, which was conducted between 7th and 16th April, surveyed a sample of 2,545 voters. It boasts a confidence level of 99% and a margin of error of ±1.51%.

Background

The Chief Justice has faced criticism following a petition by three individuals seeking her removal.

These petitions have been submitted to President John Mahama, who has referred them to the Council of State for advice on the way forward.

Meanwhile, Member of Parliament for Tafo in the Ashanti region, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General on March 27, 2025, over what he claims are constitutional breaches committed by the President when he referred the petitions to the Council of State without notifying the Chief Justice.

On April 16, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of an injunction application challenging the procedure for the potential removal of the Chief Justice. The next hearing is scheduled for May 6.

ALSO READ:

• Resist attempts to remove Chief Justice – Afenyo-Markin to Judiciary

• Chief Justice responds to removal petitions

The Effutu MP also urged the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) to speak out and condemn the move.

“All we need is to have an impartial judiciary to dispense justice. What is happening is unacceptable. And it is clear that the NDC government wants to infiltrate the judiciary and make it partisan. But my advice to all the judges in the country is to stand together.

“After dislodging one of you, you will be the next. So, judges in the country must stand together. The judiciary must stand as one body,” the MP warned.

Afenyo-Markin made these statements after an emergency New Patriotic Party (NPP) National Executive Committee meeting, where the Oquaye-led Committee presented its report on the 2024 election defeat.

He accused certain individuals within the government of orchestrating the potential removal of Chief Justice Torkornoo, with the aim of undermining the independence of the judiciary.

“We’re also concerned about certain individuals in government pushing for the removal of the Chief Justice. The judiciary should not be seen as part of the political system in our country,” he said.

The controversy stems from three petitions filed between February 14 and March 17, 2025, seeking the removal of Chief Justice Torkornoo. These petitions allege misconduct and incompetence, and have been submitted to the Presidency.

President John Mahama has since forwarded the petitions to the Council of State for advice, in line with the procedures outlined under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.

However, Old Tafo Member of Parliament, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, has filed a suit at the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional process initiated by President Mahama.

Mr. Assafuah argues that Chief Justice Torkornoo should have been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the President consulted the Council of State, as required under Article 146(6) of the Constitution. He contends that bypassing this step infringes upon her right to a fair hearing and threatens the independence of the judiciary.

Following the suit, President Mahama granted the Chief Justice 10 days to respond to the petitions, which she has since done.

ALSO READ:

• Supreme Court adjourns injunction application against CJ’s removal to May 6

Dr. Ayine argued that such suggestions are inconsistent with the law, which, he said, does not permit anyone to halt the discharge of a constitutional duty.

The former Attorney General, Godfred Dame, had earlier told journalists after the last court sitting that he expected President Mahama to pause his consultation process with the Council of State, pending the determination of a suit filed at the Supreme Court challenging the ongoing removal process.

But addressing reporters, including JoyNews’ Latif Iddrisu, after another adjournment of the injunction application at the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, Dr. Ayine maintained that the consultation process initiated by the President is a constitutional obligation that cannot be obstructed by court processes.

“The consultation process initiated by the President constitutes the performance of a constitutional duty which cannot be stopped,” Dr. Ayine stressed.

During proceedings, the Chairperson of the panel, Her Ladyship Justice Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, announced a new hearing date.

“For unavoidable reasons, we would have to adjourn to May 6,” she ruled.

The five-member panel presiding over the matter includes Justice Ernest Yao Gaewu, Justice Richard Adjei-Frimpong, Justice Prof. Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, and Justice Yaw Darko Asare.

The adjournment was reportedly necessitated by the absence of one of the Justices on the panel.

ALSO READ:

• Chief Justice responds to removal petitions
• Supreme Court adjourns injunction application against CJ’s removal to May 6

The adjournment followed an announcement by the Presiding Judge, Prof Henrietta Mensah Bonsu, who disclosed that a member of the panel was unavailable.

The case was filed by Old Tafo Member of Parliament, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, who is contesting the constitutional process initiated by President Mahama after receiving three petitions seeking the Chief Justice’s removal from office.

Mr. Assafuah contends that Chief Justice Torkornoo should have been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the President proceeded to consult the Council of State, as required under Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution.

He argues that bypassing this step infringes upon her right to a fair hearing and threatens the independence of the judiciary.

Speaking to journalists after the adjournment, Attorney General Dominic Ayine reiterated that President Mahama has a constitutional duty to fulfill and assured that the process will proceed within the confines of the law.

Addressing concerns about the state’s absence during the earlier sitting on April 9, Dr. Ayine dismissed claims by former Attorney General and lawyer for the plaintiff, Godfred Yeboah Dame, that the absence was a tactic to delay proceedings.

Wednesday’s session drew the attention of several high-profile legal practitioners, underscoring the significance of the case.

ALSO READ:

• Chief Justice responds to removal petitions
• Supreme Court adjourns indefinitely case on Chief Justice’s removal

The case was filed by the Member of Parliament for Tafo in the Ashanti Region, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, who on March 27, 2025, sued the Attorney General over what he described as constitutional breaches committed by the President.

The MP argues that the President violated Article 146 of the Constitution by referring three separate petitions seeking the Chief Justice’s removal to the Council of State without first notifying the Chief Justice or offering her an opportunity to respond.

Mr. Assafuah contends that forwarding the petitions to the Council of State without the Chief Justice’s knowledge amounts to a constitutional breach, undermining the protection of her security of tenure.

In response, President Mahama, in late March, gave the Chief Justice 10 days to submit a preliminary response to the petitions.

He also expressed disappointment over the Chief Justice’s decision to publicly raise concerns about the process before he had reviewed the matter.

The Supreme Court had initially scheduled the hearing for April 5, but proceedings were indefinitely adjourned due to a training programme involving about fifty state attorneys.

ALSO READ:

• Supreme Court adjourns indefinitely case on Chief Justice’s removal

• Retired Supreme Court judge Sulemana Gbadegbe passes on

The suit, filed by Old Tafo MP Vincent Ekow Assafuah, contests the constitutional process initiated by President John Mahama after receiving three petitions seeking the Chief Justice’s removal.

Assafuah, represented by former Attorney-General Godfred Dame, argues that the Chief Justice must be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the President consults the Council of State under Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution.

He contends that failing to notify her beforehand violates her right to a fair hearing and undermines judicial independence.

The Supreme Court is expected to determine whether the President’s actions align with constitutional provisions governing the removal of a sitting Chief Justice.

ALSO READ:

• Let’s be careful Chief Justice’s removal process doesn’t become a political tool – Dr….

• Stay and fight the petition for your removal – MP urges Chief Justice

He stressed that such a serious action should be based strictly on merit and not be influenced by political differences.

Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile, Dr. Kwapong analysed the President’s response to a petition filed by Prof. Kwaku Asare, highlighting the need for fairness in handling such cases.

“If you look at the President’s response to Prof. Asare’s petition, you will see that he takes time to emphasise that the ultimate sanction of removal should only happen when the sin committed by the Chief Justice is very serious,” he said.

He warned that the removal process should not be used as a way to settle political scores or target individuals based on disagreements.

“The lesson here is that we must be very careful not to paint the picture that this removal process is becoming a political tool for resolving deep disagreements with people we may have differed with, whether on certain processes or other issues,” he added.

Dr. Osae Kwapong pointed to past controversies, including the removal of former Electoral Commission Chairperson Charlotte Osei, as an example of how political statements can shape public perception of such processes.

“If you recall the case of the EC and Charlotte Osei, the process itself might not have been as controversial if, before the 2016 elections, there weren’t comments suggesting that if a particular side won, action would be taken against her,” he explained.

He urged politicians to be mindful of their statements, as past remarks can create doubts about the legitimacy of removal proceedings.

“This is one of the cautionary tales for our politicians. Some of the statements they make can come back to haunt them. Even if the process is legitimate, people will recall past comments and assume there is no coincidence,” he said.

ALSO READ:

• Stay and fight the petition for your removal – MP urges Chief Justice

• Chief Justice’s removal must not be politically motivated – Prof. Agyemang-Duah

He cautioned that if the process is not handled with transparency, it could be perceived as a politically motivated action, potentially undermining public trust in Ghana’s democratic institutions.

His comments follow petitions submitted to President John Mahama, calling for the removal of the Chief Justice.

Speaking in an interview with Citi FM on Friday, 28th March, Professor Agyemang-Duah warned that the situation could escalate into a political controversy if due process is not strictly followed.

He highlighted the risk of a recurring pattern where newly elected governments are seen to be targeting key figures in independent state institutions.

“Because some NDC members, though not officially, have expressed dissatisfaction with the Chief Justice’s actions during the campaign, this could easily be viewed as a political witch hunt,” he noted.

Drawing a parallel, he added, “Former President Akufo-Addo did something similar with the removal of the previous Electoral Commission chairperson. If this becomes a norm, it sets a dangerous precedent where every new government feels the need to replace key figures in constitutional bodies.”

Professor Agyemang-Duah further stressed the long-term risks of such a trend, warning that it could erode institutional stability and public confidence.

“If every newly elected government seeks to remove certain individuals from independent bodies, it will create instability and mistrust in these institutions,” he cautioned.

Meanwhile, President Mahama has formally responded to Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo’s request for copies of the petitions.

He has granted her 10 days to review and respond to the allegations, marking the next step in the constitutional process governing her potential removal.

ALSO READ:

• Mahama gives Chief Justice 10 days to respond to removal petitions

• The suit against Chief Justice removal process dead on arrival – Ansa-Asare

This step is a constitutional requirement under Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution, which states: “Where the petition is for the removal of the Chief Justice, the President shall, acting in consultation with the Council of State, appoint a committee consisting of two Justices of the Supreme Court, one of whom shall be appointed Chairman by the President, and three other persons who are not members of the Council of State, nor members of Parliament, nor lawyers.”

Two days later, at 9:20 AM on Thursday, March 27, 2025, Vincent Ekow Assafuah of Old Tafo, in Kumasi, filed an action at the Supreme Court challenging the President’s referral of the petitions to the Council of State.

Mr. Assafuah argues that the President is required, under Articles 146(1), (2), (4), (6) and (7), 23, 57(3), and 296 of the Constitution, to: “…notify the Chief Justice about a petition for her removal and obtain her comments and responses before referring the petition to the Council of State or commencing consultation with the Council of State.”

This claim raises a number of intriguing questions:

i. How did Mr. Assafuah, within just one day, ascertain that the Chief Justice was not consulted before the petitions were referred to the Council of State?
ii. Did the Chief Justice personally inform him that she was not consulted?
iii. Was there any media report confirming that the Chief Justice had been bypassed in the process?

And Godfred Dame as his lawyer? As the musician Joseph of Culture says, “This is neither a jigsaw nor a puzzle.” Things are falling into place. We either survive together or perish together.

That aside, only Article 146(6) is relevant in determining whether the President was required to seek the Chief Justice’s comments before consulting the Council of State.

Article 146(6), in clear and unambiguous terms, states that when a petition concerns the removal of the Chief Justice, the President must act in consultation with the Council of State.

In Agyei Twum v. Attorney General & Akwetey, Justice Date-Bah, speaking for the Supreme Court, held that just like other Justices of the Superior Courts, a prima facie case must first be established against the Chief Justice before a committee is empaneled to investigate the petition.

However, the Agyei Twum case did not specify how the prima facie determination should be made. What is certain, however, is that the President must act in consultation with the Council of State.

The President’s decision to refer the petitions to the Council of State is, therefore, in strict compliance with the Constitution.

The following questions expose the suit for what it is—Much Ado About Nothing:
i. If the Constitution explicitly states that “where the petition is for the removal of the Chief Justice, the President shall act in consultation with the Council of State”, is it unconstitutional for the President to refer the petitions to the Council of State?
ii. Isn’t the referral the first logical step in discussing the prima facie determination and the procedure for it?
iii. Should the President unilaterally decide on the petitions without engaging the Council of State, as mandated?
iv. Does referring the petitions to the Council of State amount to a prima facie determination without giving the Chief Justice a hearing?
v. Does this referral prevent the Chief Justice from later providing her comments on the petitions?

In the first petition, the former President’s response suggested that the Council of State had been consulted before the determination that no prima facie case had been made against the Chief Justice.

Yet, the President’s letter to Prof. Azar does not indicate that the Chief Justice was asked for her comments before that determination was made.

The Chief Justice believes in the law. There is no need for presumptive protection. Every Ghanaian believes in the law.

The law requires that the President act in consultation with the Council of State. That consultation is currently ongoing. Let the process unfold. The Council of State has its own esteemed legal minds—trust them as much as you have always asked us to trust you.

To Proxy Assafuah, let me offer a lesson from the Acts of the Apostles. In Acts 5, Peter and his fellow apostles faced intimidation aimed at silencing their mission. Yet, despite the threats, they persisted in preaching the gospel without seeking legal recourse.

When they were eventually arrested and brought before the High Priest, Gamaliel, a respected Pharisee, offered wise counsel:

He reminded his colleagues of Theudas and Judas, two men who falsely claimed divine backing but ultimately perished. Gamaliel then gave this timeless advice in Acts 5:38-39: “…Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”

So be it, Hon. Mr. Proxy! Leave the petitioners alone, for if their counsel or work be of men, their petitions will come to nought, but if it be of God, and their cause is just, no court action can overthrow it.

The presidency’s action will be in accordance with Article 146 of the Constitution.

This was in a statement signed by the Secretary to the President, Nana Bediatuo Asante, who noted the petition has officially been received and has initiated processes to act on it.

“I write to acknowledge receipt of your undated petition in respect of the above subject matter and to inform you that the President of the Republic has, in accordance with Article 146 (6) of the Constitution, commenced the appropriate processes subsequent to being petitioned for the removal of the Chief Justice,” the statement read.

The Alliance for Social Equity and Public Accountability petitioned the President for Justice Anin-Yeboah’s possible removal over his alleged involvement in a $5 million bribery allegation.

The allegations were contained in a response of a lawyer, Akwasi Afrifa, to a petition filed against him by his client at the disciplinary committee of the General Legal Council.

The Chief Justice has since denied the accusation and asked the police to probe the matter.

READ ON:

• Alleged $5m bribe: Why Chief Justice was asked to expand panel hearing chief’s case

• US$5m bribery allegation against Chief Justice: The inside story [Listen]

But the civil society organisation holds that the allegations have brought the name of the Judiciary into disrepute and cast a serious slur on justice administration in the country, hence the presidential petition.

Read the full statement below: