The latest application, lodged on 23 June 2025, challenges a petition submitted by a group known as the Shining Stars of Ghana.

Lawyers for the suspended Chief Justice contend that the petition is invalid, arguing that the group is neither a registered entity nor identifiable by its membership.

However, Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, representing the state, has rejected these claims, insisting they are unfounded and should not obstruct the committee established under Article 146 of the Constitution from carrying out its mandate.

In an affidavit sworn by State Attorney Reginald Nii Odoi, the AG’s office argued that “a body of persons—whether named or unnamed and, if named, by whatever designation—need not be incorporated or registered to exist at law.”

This marks Justice Torkornoo’s second attempt to use the High Court’s judicial review powers to halt the committee’s work.

Her earlier bid sought to have all three petitions struck out and to suspend the Justice Pawmang Committee’s sittings over alleged breaches of natural justice. That application was dismissed for being an abuse of court process and for lack of jurisdiction.

Although a related interpretation case is pending before the Supreme Court, an injunction arising from it was also refused, clearing the way for the Article 146 proceedings to continue.

In its latest response, the Attorney-General’s office maintains that the suspended Chief Justice’s arguments concern the internal proceedings of the Article 146 committee, which the Constitution stipulates must be conducted in camera.

It concluded that “the issues raised by the originating motion are not admissible in this Honourable Court,” reiterating its position that the High Court lacks jurisdiction over matters arising under Article 146.

Source: Myjoyonline

ALSO READ:

• Suspended Chief Justice takes case to ECOWAS court

• Suspended Chief Justice is not setting a good example – Musa Ahmed

The five-member panel comprised Justices Paul Baffoe-Bonnie (Presiding), Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, Yonny Kulendi, Henry Anthony Kwofie, and Yaw Asare Darko. Justice Yaw Asare Darko was the sole dissenter in the ruling.

CenCES had argued that the President’s action violated constitutional provisions and sought an order to invalidate both the suspension and the ongoing proceedings by the committee of inquiry.

However, the apex court upheld the President’s decision, allowing the committee’s work to continue.

The action of the Centre for Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems (CenCES), a Ghanaian company limited by guarantee, was instituted against the Attorney General (1st Defendant), Her Ladyship, Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo (2nd Defendant), and His Lordship Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, a Justice of the Supreme Court and chairman of the presidential investigative committee established by the President (3rd Defendant).

In a writ dated 15 May 2025, CenCES argues that the president acted unconstitutionally when he suspended the Chief Justice and initiated a five-member committee to investigate petitions against her.

The group contends that the process violated several provisions of the 1992 Constitution, including those protecting judicial independence, the right to a fair trial, and equal treatment under the law.

According to CenCES, the decision to establish a prima facie case against the Chief Justice, which was communicated by the Secretary to the President, was not made in accordance with the legal procedures outlined in Article 146 of the Constitution.

• The president’s suspension of the Chief Justice contravenes Articles 125 and 127, which guarantee the independence of the judiciary.
• The formation of a removal committee without a lawfully determined prima facie case is unconstitutional and infringes on the Chief Justice’s rights under Articles 17 and 19.
• The suspension warrant issued by the President on 22 April 2025 is arbitrary and invalid, and should therefore be struck down.

CenCES further sought an order to stop the removal committee from proceeding with any hearings or investigations and was also asking the court to restrain the Chief Justice from participating in any part of the process, citing conflict of interest concerns.

The civil society group argued that the president’s actions amount to executive overreach and called for the Supreme Court to uphold constitutional safeguards protecting judicial autonomy.

Second hearing

JoyNews’ Legal Affairs Correspondent, Latif Iddrisu, reports that the Supreme Court has called the second case filed by a private citizen on the same matter.

The plaintiff, Theodore Kofi Atta-Quartey, is also seeking to halt the ongoing processes to potentially remove the Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, from office.

Among other things, the plaintiff is requesting the apex court to place an interlocutory injunction on the work of the committee of inquiry established under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution. He argues that until his suit is fully determined, the proceedings relating to the Chief Justice’s removal should be put on hold.

ALSO READ:

• CSO files Supreme Court suit to stop Chief Justice removal

• Supreme Court must be diligent to guide future cases – Baffour Awuah

Speaking on JoyNews’ PM Express, he defended the government’s handling of the case involving the Chief Justice and emphasized that no one should be above the law, not even the one who presides over it.

“This country’s very soul thrives on freedom and justice,” the Ketu South MP stated.

“But if it’s pretty clear that the one who is supposed to be in charge of the justice of our country herself is not able to live up to the high mantra of doing things according to the law, then charity must begin at home,” he added.

Mr. Kwetey reiterated that the probe into the Chief Justice’s conduct is not politically motivated but driven by a deep commitment to accountability.

“As far as I’m concerned, if she has done everything okay, there’s no problem,” he noted. “But if there’s a problem and it’s established, then that’s it.”

He insisted that the process must be allowed to unfold without interference.

“I trust the people who make up the Council of State, including a former Chief Justice of our country and a former Speaker of Parliament. I think those are noble people who will not simply go on a witch hunt. They will be able to do a proper job,” he said.

He also defended President Mahama’s integrity in handling the matter.

“I know John Mahama as a person. He is not a petty-minded person who simply wants to take an innocent person and punish,” he said.

The NDC General Secretary emphasized that a prima facie case has already been established and that the next steps must follow the law.

“Clearly, once a case is established against her, she has to go. And if the case is shown that she actually has no case to answer, there is no problem,” he asserted.

Mr. Kwetey accused the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) of panicking over the situation.

“The NPP worries that they feel her departure makes it difficult for them to feel safe when cases are brought against them. Because now they are afraid that the person who could possibly be manipulating the system to help them is no more,” he said.

When host Evans Mensah pointed out that the same logic could be used to accuse the NDC of wanting her removed for their advantage, Mr. Kwetey responded: “We are looking for justice. Justice simply means that if you truly abuse the system, you should go. If you are guilty, you should be out.”

He rejected any suggestion that the government was using the situation to neutralize judicial opposition.

“This is not about fear. It’s about principle. The law must be applied, even at the highest levels,” he stated.

For Mr. Kwetey, the message is clear: the pursuit of justice must be blind to position or power.

And in this case, the Chief Justice should face scrutiny like any other public servant, he concluded.

“Let justice take its course, even if it reaches the Chief Justice,” he said.

ASO READ:

• Justice Atuguba slams NPP’s hypocrisy over Chief Justice suspension

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

In an exclusive interview with JoyNews on Thursday, May 8, Prof Oquaye questioned the neutrality of committee members appointed to investigate such matters, suggesting that personal affiliations could override the facts presented.

He explained that the current process for suspending a sitting Chief Justice risks concentrating excessive power in the hands of the president, stating that, “once the President decides you should go, you are on your way out,” he said.

Prof Oquaye’s comment comes amid ongoing controversy surrounding a petition for the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.

He questioned the fairness and transparency of the disciplinary mechanism, particularly the influence the president wields in triggering the process.

“I don’t know why, very often, we don’t analytically recall historical events,” he said, urging Ghanaians to examine the long-term implications of such procedures.

The former Speaker’s comments come amid national debate over a petition to remove Ghana’s Chief Justice.

He expressed dismay over how the matter has unfolded publicly, including media leaks and questions over due process.

While declining to comment on specific facts of the petition case, he emphasised the need for a principled discussion on the fairness of the process.

“What I am very much keen upon is exactly the issue that I’ve discussed, and it must be resolved as a preliminary issue,” Prof Oquaye said.

“If you were to put me in such a trial, I wouldn’t go and I wouldn’t plead, I wouldn’t say anything.”

He criticised the notion of closed-door disciplinary proceedings, describing them as akin to a “star chamber court” and inherently unjust.

“Nobody wants a secret trial, even in our traditional system, which is guaranteed by this constitution,” he noted, adding that, unlike other judicial staff who can appeal disciplinary actions, the Chief Justice in this process has no such recourse.

ALSO READ:

• Justice Atuguba slams NPP’s hypocrisy over Chief Justice suspension

• 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

“I am concerned about certain issues that I consider vital, particularly the trial in-camera provision. You will ask yourself what the rationale is for that provision in our constitution, what is its purpose, and if we are to give it a purposeful interpretation, where shall we go? Is the purpose to benefit the people of Ghana as a whole—that the Chief Justice must be tried in-camera…”

He added, “From the very beginning, the constitution tells us justice belongs to the people, it emanates from the people, justice belongs to all of us. One may say that this provision could be adverse to the one that says trial must be done in-camera,” he said in an exclusive interview with JoyNews.

Prof. Oquaye also raised concerns about the transparency and integrity of the process.

He argued that the judiciary must be insulated from political interference, adding that the current handling of the matter risks eroding confidence in the rule of law.

The Chief Justice was recently suspended following allegations of misconduct, after which a formal petition was submitted to President John Mahama, prompting the formation of a committee to investigate the matter.

The proceedings, however, have largely been conducted in-camera, drawing criticism from sections of the public and some legal minds.

While the NDC government maintains that the suspension was carried out in accordance with constitutional provisions, Prof. Oquaye argues that the secrecy surrounding the process undermines the principles of accountability and due process.

ALSO READ:

• Justice Atuguba slams NPP’s hypocrisy over Chief Justice suspension

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

According to Frank Davies, Justice Atuguba should remain quiet in retirement and refrain from making public comments that, in his view, undermine the judiciary.

Speaking on JoyFM’s Top Story on Wednesday, May 7, Mr. Davies stated that Justice Atuguba’s choice of words was unbecoming of someone who once served on the nation’s highest court.

“Justice Atuguba, don’t do this. He is now telling us that the Supreme Court is politicised. That is his language,” he said.

“The language Justice Atuguba uses on radio—‘rubbish’ and all that—for a Justice of the Supreme Court… I hold him in high regard. I have sat on the General Legal Council with him for many years and have learned so much from him. I would rather pray that Justice Atuguba stops these commentaries.”

His comments follow Justice Atuguba’s criticism of the NPP’s handling of the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.

Speaking on JoyNews’ The Pulse, Justice Atuguba dismissed the NPP’s reaction to the suspension as “rubbish,” stating that their posture merely advances a political narrative.

The Supreme Court, in a narrow 3–2 ruling delivered on Tuesday, dismissed a case brought by Old Tafo MP Ekow Vincent Assafuah. The case challenged President Mahama’s decision to suspend and initiate removal proceedings against the Chief Justice following allegations of misconduct.

“Scanning through the events in court, that is rubbish,” Justice Atuguba said, arguing that the NPP had raised no objections when Justice Torkornoo made rulings in their favour.

Mr. Davies further accused the retired judge of demonstrating political bias in favour of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC), warning that his remarks risk damaging the credibility of sitting judges.

“Now, he is just trying to paint them with a brush. What he said was that if the panel had not been reconstituted, would we have had a 3-2 decision? Excuse me, Justice Atuguba, stop doing this to the judiciary,” he stated.

Addressing claims about recent Supreme Court decisions, Mr. Davies rejected allegations that Chief Justice Torkornoo had manipulated court panels to influence outcomes.

“These quarrels about unanimous decisions, and that when Justice Torkornoo was Chief Justice she empanelled justices to secure predetermined rulings, are simply not true,” he said.

ALSO READ:

• Justice Atuguba slams NPP’s hypocrisy over Chief Justice suspension

• Tragic blow to democracy if Atuguba’s judicial bias claim is true – Prof Agyeman-Duah

• NPP’s reaction to CJ’s suspension is ‘rubbish’ – Justice Atuguba

According to him, the outcome might have been different if the panel had not been reconstituted.

In an exclusive interview with JoyNews’ Elton Brobbey, Justice Atuguba questioned the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP) sincerity in protesting the Chief Justice’s suspension and dismissed Godfred Dame’s objection to the acting Chief Justice presiding over the case as unfounded and unprecedented.

“Look at the empanelment. If that panel had not been reconstituted, do you think we would have seen a 3–2 decision? For how long have we seen nothing but unanimous decisions, one after the other, always in their favour—until now?” he asked in the yet-to-be aired interview on The Pulse.

Justice Atuguba suggested that consistent, unanimous rulings during Chief Justice Torkornoo’s tenure were suspicious and pointed to a deeper issue of political bias in the judiciary.

“What is the impression there? So long as Justice Torkonoo puts panels that give you unanimous decisions in their favour, that is justice, isn’t it?  Why is the NPP championing this course like that?” he asked, accusing the NPP of promoting a one-sided democratic structure. “That’s the democracy they want to entrench? That’s rubbish. You are ordaining a dictatorship in disguise.”

Referencing comments by National Security Minister Albert Kan-Dapaah, who once acknowledged that courts sometimes balance decisions in the interest of national stability, Justice Atuguba called him “an honest man”—but questioned the implication.

“If the courts are truly implementing the law, why would he feel the need to say that? What was making him apprehensive?” he asked. “Public perception? The trend of unanimous rulings? Wasn’t that happening?”

He further criticised the NPP’s moral authority to question the current judicial process. “When they were in office, did they act transparently? Neutrally? In the interest of the people? I hate this kind of pure hypocrisy,” he fumed.

ALSO READ:

• CJ suspension: Supreme Court’s 3-2 ruling shows our case had merit – Dame

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

According to him, the application lacked legal merit, and the court was right to throw it out in a 3–2 majority ruling on Tuesday, 6 May.

In an interview on The Pulse on Joy News shortly after the verdict, Mr Ansa-Asare argued that, as acting Chief Justice, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie holds both the legal and administrative authority, as head of the judiciary, to assign judges to cases.

Mr Ansa-Asare further noted that, where necessary, Justice Baffoe-Bonnie is permitted to sit on cases by virtue of the office he currently occupies. He therefore sees no illegality or constitutional violation in the acting Chief Justice’s involvement and believes there is no basis for any challenge to his actions.

He added that moral arguments against Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s role were subjective and could not form the basis for judicial compulsion.

“There is an acting Chief Justice, and administratively, he—and he alone—has the authority in matters of empanelling or composing justices to sit on this matter,” he stated. “In the absence of the Chief Justice, the most senior justice of the Supreme Court must carry out that duty. No one can fault the acting Chief Justice for deciding to sit.”

The injunction application formed part of a broader legal challenge involving the Chief Justice’s suspension, raising significant questions about fairness and judicial propriety.

Former Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame, representing the Member of Parliament for Tafo, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, objected to Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s participation and leadership of the panel. He argued that it was both unprecedented and improper for an acting Chief Justice to empanel and preside over a matter involving the substantive Chief Justice.

He contended that the acting Chief Justice was a direct beneficiary of the suspension, and thus it was inappropriate for him to preside over a case that could determine whether he might permanently replace the substantive Chief Justice.

That objection was unanimously dismissed by the Court after a brief recess, allowing proceedings to continue under Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s leadership.

The legal team opposing the suspension further argued that continuing proceedings without resolving preliminary objections would undermine the integrity of the judicial process. However, the majority of the panel found insufficient grounds to justify halting the case at this stage.

To strengthen his argument, the MP for Tafo noted during The Pulse discussions that former Chief Justice Georgina Wood had recused herself in some matters due to her appointment by former President Kufuor. He suggested that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, who was appointed acting Chief Justice by President Mahama, should have done the same.

Mr Ansa-Asare, however, disagreed.

“Justice Georgina Wood recused herself for reasons best known to her, but that does not mean other justices must follow her example. If Paul Baffoe-Bonnie feels he needs to sit and has done so, it is within his constitutional mandate,” he said.

He continued: “There is a legal doctrine known as the doctrine of necessity. Acting upon this doctrine, the Chief Justice or acting Chief Justice may decide to sit, and it is not unlawful to do so.

“If she had not been suspended and chosen to sit, she would not have erred. In like manner, if the acting Chief Justice chooses to sit, he has not erred. So, the issue of fairness does not arise—it is a constitutional mandate. The Constitution empowers the head of the judiciary to empanel, including himself or herself.”

The current panel hearing the case comprises Justices Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Yonny Kulendi, Amadu Tanko, and Ernest Gaewu.

Tuesday’s decision saw Justices Mensa-Bonsu and Gaewu dissenting, while the majority ruled that the case should proceed without further delay.

ALSO READ:

• Supreme Court dismisses Dame’s objection to Ag. CJ in Torkornoo case
• Vincent Assafuah hints at review after Supreme Court dismisses bid to halt Chief Justice’s…

Addressing the matter in an interview on Channel One TV, Mr Darko reiterated his longstanding opposition to the decision taken by President Akufo‑Addo’s administration.

“My position on Charlotte Osei is that it was wrong. I’ve made that point clear; I’ve never supported the removal. I think that removal was wrong. What happened to Charlotte Osei was wrong,” he declared, emphasising that the tribunal’s verdict did not align with his view of procedural fairness.

Osei and her two deputies, Amadu Sulley and Georgina Opoku Amankwaa, were dismissed following recommendations by a committee chaired by then Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo, convened under Article 146(4) of the Constitution.

The panel had cited alleged procurement infractions as the basis for its report.

Despite his criticism of Osei’s ousting, Mr Darko was careful to distinguish that matter from the current suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.

“Let us not mix the two; it’s not really tit for tat. This one is going up and beyond,” he explained, arguing that the inquiry into Madam Torkornoo should be judged on its own legal merits rather than portrayed as partisan retribution.

ALSO READ:

• Charlotte Osei calls for amendment to Asset Declaration regime

• If Charlotte Osei’s removal was wrong, so is Torkornoo’s – Egyapa Mercer tells NDC

Former Attorney General Godfred Dame has insisted that the Supreme Court’s 3-2 decision against his injunction application in the Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo suspension case demonstrates the legal merit of his challenge, despite the unfavorable outcome.

The closely divided ruling came after lawyers for Old Tafo MP Vincent Assafuah sought to halt proceedings, arguing that constitutional questions about judicial independence and due process needed resolution before the case could properly continue.

While the majority found insufficient grounds for an injunction, Dame explained the significance of two justices dissenting.

Speaking to JoyNews after the ruling, Dame, who represents the applicant, expressed concerns about Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie presiding over the case involving the suspended Chief Justice.

“This is incongruous in our judicial history. If anyone benefits from these developments, it is the acting Chief Justice,” Dame said.

“It’s quite intriguing that the acting Chief Justice himself sat on these proceedings,” the former AG added.

He noted the split decision spoke volumes: “The 3-2 narrowness of the decision itself indicates clearly that the application no doubt had merit. We await the court’s full reasoning before determining our next steps.”

The ruling followed the court’s earlier unanimous dismissal of Dame’s objection to Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s participation.

The former AG had argued that it was improper for the acting Chief Justice to both empanel judges and preside over a case concerning the suspended Chief Justice, warning that this could undermine public confidence in judicial independence.

The five-member panel hearing the case includes Justices Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Henrietta Mensa Bonsu, Yonny Kulendi, Amadu Tanko, and Ernest Gaewu.

With the injunction rejected, the court will now proceed to consider the substantive constitutional questions surrounding Chief Justice Torkornoo’s controversial suspension.

ALSO READ:

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

• There’s hypocrisy on the other side – Arthur Kennedy on nomination of 7 Supreme…

The coalition includes the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Liberal Party of Ghana (LPG), National Democratic Party (NDP), People’s National Party (PNP), and the Ghana Union Movement (GUM), among others.

The protesters will march through the principal streets of Accra to urge President John Mahama to rescind his decision.

The suspension followed the establishment of a prima facie case after three separate petitions were filed calling for her removal.

However, the political parties involved have strongly condemned the decision, calling it a direct attack on the independence of the judiciary.

They have also alleged that it is not an isolated incident but part of a broader scheme to “capture every arm of government, even the judiciary.”

The demonstration is expected to begin at 7 am, starting from a park opposite the Supreme Court.

They will march through Parliament House, ending at the Jubilee House, where the petition will be submitted to President Mahama or a representative.

ALSO READ:

• Demo against suspension of Chief Justice will shake Ghana – NPP [Video]

• GBA threatens court action over Chief Justice’s suspension

The suspension followed the establishment of a prima facie case after three separate petitions were filed calling for her removal.

However, the political parties involved have strongly condemned the decision, calling it a direct attack on the independence of the judiciary.

Speaking on Asempa FM’s Ekosii Sen, the Director of Communications, Richard Ahiagbah, declared that the protest scheduled for Monday, May 5, 2025, will shake the nation.

ALSO READ:

• Political parties announce nationwide protest over Chief Justice’s suspension
• NPP, other political parties notify police of demo against CJ’s suspension

• Why GUM won’t join CJ’s suspension demo – Osofo Kyiri Abosom reveals [Audio]

Nana Yaa Jantuah described the demonstration as unnecessary, suggesting it is simply the NPP’s way of coping with boredom.

Speaking on Asempa FM’s Ekosii Sen, she questioned the NPP’s interest in the ongoing process and whether the Chief Justice was a party member.

“When there is a need for a probe, we must do so thoroughly, and so we have to investigate the petitions. What is the NPP’s problem? Is the woman a card-bearing member or their Women’s Organiser?” she quizzed.

The NPP and other opposition groups have announced plans to stage a demonstration on May 5 to protest what they describe as political interference in the judiciary.

The Chief Justice’s suspension followed the establishment of a prima facie case after three separate petitions were filed calling for her removal.

However, the political parties involved have strongly condemned the decision, calling it a direct attack on the independence of the judiciary.

But infuriated by the move, the former General Secretary of the Convention People’s Party (CPP) asserted that it could also be out of guilt.

“Everything the woman did that Ghanaians aren’t happy with, the NPP emboldened her, so they feel guilty—because I don’t see why they would bring parties together for a demo.

“They have nothing doing, and I see it as boredom. This is not the first time someone in an independent body is being probed. Charlotte Osei and other people went through it, so what is the NPP’s problem?” she fumed.

ALSO READ:

• Political parties announce nationwide protest over Chief Justice’s suspension
• Why GUM won’t join CJ’s suspension demo – Osofo Kyiri Abosom reveals [Audio]
• Chief Justice suspension: Minority backs nationwide protest to defend Ghana’s democracy

She has therefore suggested to the eight-member Constitutional Review Committee, recently set up by the President, to consider amending the current constitutional provisions to make the processes for removing the Chief Justice more stringent.

She also suggested that any Chief Justice found culpable of misconduct by the five-member committee set up by the President must be given the opportunity to appeal, since the current arrangement does not provide for an appeal against the committee’s ruling.

Justice Sophia Akuffo made these proposals when she appeared before the Constitutional Review Committee, chaired by Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh, in Accra on Wednesday, April 30.

The meeting, facilitated by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), formed part of the Constitutional Review Committee’s engagements with eminent persons who have occupied prominent positions in the country’s constitutional system to share their perspectives on reviewing some entrenched and non-entrenched clauses in the 1992 Constitution.

The former Chief Justice cited the Kenyan judicial system, where a Judiciary Commission—composed of varied experts and independent-minded individuals—investigates cases involving a Chief Justice accused of misconduct, without the President’s involvement.

She proposed that in reviewing the current constitutional provisions, there must be an independent body to investigate prima facie cases against the Chief Justice, instead of the five-member committee appointed by the President.

Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution 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.”

Clause 7 of Article 146 states: “The committee appointed under clause (6) of this article shall inquire into the petition and recommend to the President whether the Chief Justice ought to be removed from office.”

Clause 8 states: “All proceedings under this article shall be held in camera, and the Justice or Chairman against whom the petition is made is entitled to be heard in his defence by himself or by a lawyer or other expert of his choice.”

Clause 9 adds: “The President shall, in each case, act in accordance with the recommendations of the committee.”

Clause 10(a) of Article 146 states: “Where a petition has been referred to a committee under this article, the President may, in the case of the Chief Justice, acting in accordance with the advice of the Council of State, by warrant signed by him, suspend the Chief Justice.”

Other eminent persons who appeared before the Prof. Kwasi Prempeh-chaired Committee on Wednesday included Sam Okudzeto, former Council of State member, and Professor Aaron Mike Oquaye, former Speaker of Parliament.

The eminent persons made various proposals for constitutional amendments, touching on the country’s natural resource governance, the need for host communities to benefit more from resource exploitation, the election of district, municipal, and metropolitan chief executives, the 50 per cent appointment of Ministers from Parliament, and the role of the Council of State—whether it should be maintained or scrapped.

ALSO READ:

• Council of State has failed in our democracy – Afenyo-Markin on Chief Justice’s suspension

• Hasten slowly – Organised Labour urges Mahama over removal of Chief Justice 

The Minority in Parliament has criticised the Council of State over its alleged role in the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.

Accusing the advisory body of complicity in what he described as a politically motivated decision, Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin said the Council had failed to uphold the principles of Ghana’s democracy.

The Effutu MP made these remarks during a press conference ahead of a planned demonstration by a coalition of political parties, scheduled for Monday, 5th May.

“The current attacks on the Chief Justice and the broader attempts to politicise the judiciary must be recognised for what they truly are. In this instance, our Council of State has failed our democracy,” he stated.

The lawmaker alleged that the government, with the support of the Council of State, orchestrated the Chief Justice’s removal to serve partisan interests.

He further expressed grave concern that the independence of the judiciary is under threat.

“On behalf of the Minority Caucus, I state unequivocally that what we are witnessing under the John Mahama-led administration is a systematic and calculated assault on the judiciary—an institution that represents the last bastion of the rule of law, the protection of civil liberties, and the very survival of our democratic republic.

“Today, we are confronted with acts of intimidation, political manipulation, and the open targeting of judges deemed inconvenient or non-compliant. This is not only unacceptable—it is offensive to good conscience,” he added.

In light of these concerns, the Minority Caucus has called on all Ghanaians to join the protest, emphasizing that it is not a partisan event but a collective effort to defend the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.

ALSO READ:

• 30 out of 31 Council of State Members’ recommendation led to suspension of Chief…

• This can break the nation – Manhyia South MP cautions Council of State over…

The Union urged the President to tread cautiously as it could set a bad precedent.

At its 2025 Mid-Year conference in Accra, the GBA issued a communiqué demanding that President John Dramani Mahama revoke the suspension of the Chief Justice, citing its unconstitutionality under Article 146(10).

The Association explained that its demand seeks to prevent the abuse of discretionary powers in such cases.

However, in an interview on Adom FM’s Dwaso Nsem, Dr. Srem-Sai questioned the logic behind the GBA’s stance, expressing concern over the resolution, which was passed by only 47 members despite the GBA’s membership of over 7,000. His primary concern, however, was the principle behind the decision rather than the number of members involved.

“I am too worried that GBA will do such a thing because the people who even did this were 47, although they satisfied the quorum,” he lamented.

ALSO READ:

• ‘The law is not in the bosom of the Bar’ – Thaddeus Sory unleashes…

• ‘Law is not democracy’- Deputy AG dismisses GBA’s resolution on CJ suspension

The GBA claims that the Chief Justice’s suspension is unconstitutional due to the lack of published regulations governing the President’s discretion under Article 296(c). Here’s why that claim fails:

1. Supreme Court Already Decided This: In Ransford France v. Electoral Commission (2012), the Supreme Court unanimously held that not every discretionary act requires prior published regulations.

2. Literal Reading Rejected: Justice Date-Bah warned that a literal interpretation of Article 296(c) could lead to a “nuclear meltdown” of government, crippling normal administration.

3. Targeted Scope of Article 296(c): The Court ruled that Article 296(c) applies only to quasi-judicial situations, not to administrative acts such as suspending an official pending investigation. The Court clarified that “quasi-judicial” refers to adjudication.

4. Living Constitution Approach: Justice Atuguba emphasized that the Constitution must be interpreted dynamically to promote governance, not obstruct it with technicalities.

5. Absence of Regulations ≠ Automatic Unconstitutionality: The absence of regulations does not invalidate a discretionary act unless the act itself is arbitrary, biased, or violates due process (Articles 296(a) and (b)).

6. GBA Offers No Evidence of Bias or Unfairness: The GBA merely points to the absence of regulations without proving that the suspension was unfair, arbitrary, or prejudiced.

7. Ignoring Precedent is Dangerous: The GBA’s position ignores the Ransford France precedent and risks spreading legal confusion, rather than defending the rule of law.

8. Legal Certainty Matters: Following the GBA’s logic, thousands of lawful discretionary acts since 1969 would collapse. That is not the rule of law—it is chaos.

9. GOGO Supports Scrutiny—But It Must Be Grounded in Law: Criticism of executive action must be rooted in binding precedent, not political expediency or selective readings of the Constitution.

10. Conclusion: The Chief Justice’s suspension remains constitutional. The GBA’s call for revocation lacks legal merit and risks politicizing the judiciary.

B. GBA Calls for an End to Prejudicial Commentary

1. The GBA’s Self-Contradiction: In calling for an end to prejudicial commentary, the GBA has issued one of the most prejudicial declarations yet.

2. Premature Judgment: By declaring the Chief Justice’s suspension unconstitutional—without legal basis, reference to binding precedent, or waiting for the completion of the Article 146 process—the GBA has done exactly what it warns others against: passing judgment prematurely.

3. Practice What It Preaches: If the GBA wants to defend due process, it must first practice it. It cannot condemn prejudgment with one hand while dispensing it with the other.

4. Let the GBA Heed Its Own Message: Da Yie!

He accused the professional body of hypocrisy, legal ignorance, and double standards in its recent resolution demanding the revocation of the Chief Justice’s suspension and the withdrawal of a directive issued by the Acting Chief Justice.

In a statement released on April 29, Sory dismissed the GBA’s resolution, passed three days earlier on April 26, as “legally flawed and disrespectful,” questioning the very legal grounding of the Association’s position.

“The law is not in the bosom of the Bar,” Sory declared, challenging the GBA’s interpretation of constitutional provisions and its motives.

The Ghana Bar Association had resolved that:

i. The Acting Chief Justice should withdraw his directive “on the assignment of cases”; and
ii. The President should revoke the “suspension of the Chief Justice.”

According to the GBA, the President’s action was unconstitutional, as it lacked the requisite legal backing under Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution. But Sory was unrelenting in his response.

“These demands,” he wrote, “expose a troubling inconsistency in the Bar’s reasoning.”

He questioned the timing of the resolution and the lack of clarity from the GBA itself, noting, “Perhaps it’s no surprise that it took two clear days for the Ghana Bar Association’s resolution to finally see the light of day.”

Sory pointed out that the very power to assign cases, which the GBA now wants withdrawn, is tied not to the individual Chief Justice but to the office itself.

“By law and longstanding practice, the power to assign cases is an administrative function of the Chief Justice,” he explained.
“This function pertains to the office, not the individual currently holding the title.”

He stressed that the Acting Chief Justice, constitutionally recognised, has every right to perform that role.

“The suspended Chief Justice exercised that function while in office. Now, the Acting Chief Justice must do the same.”

In a damning rebuke, Sory accused the Bar of inconsistency and silence in the face of past abuses.

“The Bar’s position implies that the powers of the office are personal to the suspended Chief Justice,” he wrote.
“But when she was in office, the Bar raised no objections as she reassigned judges and altered case allocations.”

“Did they then suggest she rely on an algorithm or random generator to assign cases?” he asked, with biting sarcasm.

“Where was the Bar when the suspended Chief Justice issued unconstitutional and unlawful administrative guidelines and practice directions?”

According to Sory, some of those actions caused financial loss to the state—yet the Bar said nothing.

“And if the Bar claims ignorance, I wrote publicly on those very matters.”

On the constitutional question, Sory was unequivocal: “Article 146(10) of the 1992 Constitution clearly states: ‘… the President may, acting in accordance with the advice of the Council of State, suspend the Chief Justice.’”

He argued that “the word ‘may’ here does not grant discretion to act unilaterally. Once advised by the Council of State, the President is constitutionally bound to act—he must suspend.”

Sory challenged the Bar to pursue legal action if it truly believes it has a case, warning, however, that precedent is not on their side.

“If the Bar believes it has a case, let it go to court. But history is not on their side,” he stated. “Past attempts have yielded embarrassing defeats.”

Taking a parting swipe at the Bar’s self-assumed monopoly on legal interpretation, Sory reminded his colleagues: “Even outside of constitutional litigation, our respected colleague Ward Brew has repeatedly prevailed in court against the Bar. The law is not the sole preserve of the Bar’s interpretation.”

ALSO READ:

• GBA threatens court action over Chief Justice’s suspension
• ‘Law is not democracy’- Deputy AG dismisses GBA’s resolution on CJ suspension

Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Tuesday, April 29, he said the Bar had overstepped its legal limits.

“Law is not democracy,” he stated.
“So that when 10,000 people say this is the law, this is the meaning of the law, and one person says this is not the meaning of the law, then the 10,000 will win. It doesn’t work that way.”

He questioned the legitimacy and wisdom of the Bar’s resolution, passed by what he described as “45 people,” being used to speak for an entire association of over 5,000 lawyers.

“Someone might have prompted though that the resolution of 45 people, which is going to be attributed to an association of over 5,000 people, should be carefully thought out before it is even painted on the letterhead of the GBA,” he stated.

Justice Srem Sai’s comments come amid rising tensions in the legal community following the Chief Justice’s suspension and growing concern over perceived inconsistencies in the GBA’s public posture.

To him, the most troubling part of the Bar’s position is that it attempts to override existing judicial precedent.

“There is already a decision on this matter,” he said.
“So to pass a resolution on something which the Supreme Court has already decided and expect that the resolution should take precedence over the binding constitution is one thing that I cannot imagine will happen in an assembly of lawyers.”

He added that the law must be based on careful reasoning, not popular opinion.

“Law is backed by legal reasoning, paying attention to legal precedence, reading text and reading them in the light of decided cases,” he said.

The Deputy Attorney General also took issue with the GBA’s demand that the President publish details of a prima facie determination involving the Chief Justice.

He insisted such a call directly violates the Constitution and long-standing judicial pronouncements.

“One point in the resolution says that the President should go ahead and publish the prima facie decision,” he said, “when we all know that the Constitution commands that the process should not be done in public.”

He pointed to at least three separate court decisions that affirm the confidentiality of such proceedings.

“Not the petition, not the conversation around it, not the content of the petition, not the process and what happened in the proceedings should be made public,” he emphasised.

“So if, in the light of this strong constitutional injunction supported by well-decided cases, the GBA, an assembly of lawyers, can actually pass a resolution or call on the President to ask him to make what the Constitution requires to be private, public, then there’s a problem with that.”

ALSO READ:

• GBA breaks silence on suspension of Chief Justice
• GBA threatens court action over Chief Justice’s suspension

The GBA’s position follows resolutions from its National Executive Council at its recent mid-year conference, where it declared the suspension unconstitutional.

Speaking on Joy FM’s Top Story on Tuesday, GBA Public Relations Officer Saviour Kudze emphasized the need for clarity in the legal process.

According to him, the potential legal move is crucial to establish clear guidelines for the future.

He explained that the court action would seek judicial interpretation to prevent the arbitrary use of executive power in such matters.

The Association argues that President Mahama’s suspension of the Chief Justice violates Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution, which mandates published regulations for the exercise of discretionary powers.

The GBA maintains that the absence of such rules renders the suspension unlawful.

However, Deputy Attorney General Justice Srem Sai has dismissed the GBA’s stance.

“We are convinced that our position is the right one. We don’t know whether the GBA will gather the confidence and courage to proceed to court on something like this,” he said on Joy FM’s Newsnite.

He further explained that the failure to publish the regulations does not prevent the President from exercising his discretion.

“The failure or inability to publish a CI in respect of discretionary power does not prevent the President from exercising it at all.”

ALSO READ:

• There must be serious introspection on petitions to remove Chief Justice – Prof Agyeman-Duah

• Atta Akyea wades into Chief Justice’s suspension saga [Audio]

While discussing one of the petitions, she argued that the petitioner raised concerns about a case allegedly mishandled by the Chief Justice.

However, she pointed out that other judges also sat on the case, questioning why the petitioner is calling for the removal of only the Chief Justice and not the other three judges who heard the case.

President John Mahama on Tuesday, April 22, 2025, suspended the Chief Justice, following the establishment of a committee to investigate petitions seeking her removal over alleged misconduct.

The move, announced in a statement from the Presidency, complies with constitutional provisions and follows consultations with the Council of State.

ALSO READ:

• CDM condemns Chief Justice suspension as constitutional breach

• Names of petitioners, allegations against Chief Justice and her responses emerge 

Speaking on Newsfile on Saturday, Ms Dapaah said that after reviewing the three petitions submitted to President John Mahama seeking the removal of the Chief Justice, she found them insufficient to warrant any prima facie case.

“My position has been that there is no basis whatsoever for finding a prima facie case in respect of at least the three petitions that have come,” she remarked.

Her comments come in the wake of the Chief Justice’s suspension by President Mahama, following advice from the Council of State.

The suspension has sparked widespread public and legal debate, with many questioning the transparency, motive, and procedural fairness of the decision.

Ms Dapaah explained that President John Mahama has breached Article 146, “The whole purpose of Article 146 is guided by the Constitution generally and by the very position of Article 146. Now we have seen the suspension, and what I see is that Clause 10 of Article 146 permits, by way of exercise of discretion for the president to exercise this discretion to suspend the Chief Justice.”

The petitions in question allege various breaches by Justice Torkornoo, including abuse of office and misconduct, though critics argue that the details of these accusations remain vague and politically motivated.

Ms Dapaah stressed the importance of following due process, especially in matters involving high-ranking judicial figures.

The controversy surrounding the suspension continues to dominate national discourse, as many await further clarification from a five-member committee set up by the Presidency to probe the case.

ALSO READ:

• 30 out of 31 Council of State Members’ recommendation led to suspension of Chief…

• NPP threatens protest over suspension of Chief Justice [Listen]

Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile on Saturday, Barker-Vormawor argued that, contrary to the Deputy AG’s claims, the threshold is considerably high, and the legal process demands a robust evidentiary basis before such a case can proceed.

He maintained that, in his view, the allegations currently levelled against the Chief Justice are substantial and, when considered together, meet the necessary requirements to establish a prima facie case.

Barker-Vormawor’s remarks come amid growing public debate over the accountability of judicial figures and the integrity of constitutional processes in the country following petitions to the president to remove the Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo for alleged misconducts.

The president last week suspended the Chief Justice after the establishment of a committee to investigate the petitions against her.

ALSO READ:

• Ag. Chief Justice directs registrars to submit all new cases, applications for assignment and…

• Ansa-Asare defends Chief Justice amid travel fund allegations

ALSO READ:

• NPP threatens protest over suspension of Chief Justice [Listen]

• Why Justice Baffoe-Bonnie should not accept role as Ag. Chief Justice – Nana B…

• Mahama suspended Chief Justice due to personal dislike – Ntim Fordjour

The decision was made at an emergency meeting held on Thursday, April 24, 2025.

The coalition includes the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Liberal Party of Ghana (LPG), National Democratic Party (NDP), People’s National Party (PNP), and the Ghana Union Movement (GUM), among others.

They argued that the suspension of the Chief Justice is not an isolated incident but part of a broader scheme to “capture every arm of government, even the judiciary.”

They cited a previous failed attempt by the NDC in 2010 to remove the former Chief Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, Ghana’s first female to hold the position.

“History is being repeated. We must not remain silent.”

Describing the suspension as a “reckless assault” on Ghana’s democracy, the parties have pledged to defend the constitution and uphold the nation’s cherished democratic principles.

“The political parties observed that the blatant disregard for the rule of law is not merely a political matter but rather an assault on the very soul of our democracy. The disturbing trend of judicial intimidation by the NDC is not new. The pattern is undeniable,” the group noted in a statement.

The group has alleged that after reconstituting the judiciary with “loyalist appointments,” the Mahama-led government plans to pursue constitutional interpretation at the Supreme Court, aimed at legitimising a third-term bid in the 2028 elections.

They have therefore rallied all citizens, civil society organizations, and religious groups to join the non-partisan, national call to defend judicial independence.

“Is this the future Mahama promised?” the statement questioned. “A regime of fear, where livelihoods are sacrificed on the altar of political vengeance?”

“To remain indifferent is to endorse the rise of an authoritarian state. Be a citizen, not a spectator. Stand for democracy. Oppose dictatorship.”

ALSO READ:

• Ag. Chief Justice directs registrars to submit all new cases, applications for assignment and…

• NPP threatens protest over suspension of Chief Justice [Listen]

The former Deputy Minister for Local Government and Decentralisation has argued that the suspension violated due process and is seeking a reversal.

In the writ filed on Thursday, April 24, the MP, who is also a lawyer, is, among other things, seeking a restraining order against any steps or actions being taken as part of the removal process under Article 146 until the hearing and final determination of the action.

This adds to an initial suit challenging the procedural legality of President Mahama’s actions regarding the potential removal of Chief Justice Torkonoo following the receipt of three petitions.

Mr. Assafuah, invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Article 2(1)(b) of the Constitution, is seeking multiple declarations on the proper interpretation of constitutional provisions governing the removal of a Chief Justice.

ALSO READ:

• Ansa-Asare defends Chief Justice amid travel fund allegations

• CDM condemns Chief Justice suspension as constitutional breach

Read the full statement:

Ansa-Asare argued that there is nothing improper about a public office holder benefiting from the terms of their appointment.

His comments come after a petition was submitted to President John Dramani Mahama by a private citizen, Daniel Ofori, who claims that the Chief Justice misappropriated over GHS 261,000 in state funds during 2023 to sponsor personal trips abroad, accompanied by her husband and daughter.

The petition further alleges that an additional GHS 75,580 was drawn by the Chief Justice for a trip to Tanzania, and that she failed to provide an account for a $14,000 imprest allocated for the same journey.

Ofori is one of three individuals who have petitioned the President for the Chief Justice’s removal from office, citing alleged misconduct and abuse of office.

Speaking on Citi FM on Wednesday, April 23, 2025, Kwaku Ansa-Asare stressed that the issue should be evaluated within the context of the Chief Justice’s contractual entitlements.

He explained that the matter of her traveling with her spouse and daughter stems from the terms of her appointment, which were set by the Judicial Council or the entity that appointed her.

Ansa-Asare expressed confidence that these terms and conditions were properly formulated and, as such, saw no wrongdoing in the Chief Justice enjoying the benefits outlined in her appointment.

Ansa-Asare said, “The issue with the Chief Justice travelling with her spouse and her daughter is matters arising from the contract of employment. So, they are issues that stem from the terms and conditions in her appointment. I am sure, as it was formulated in the terms and condition by herself. It was the judicial council or whoever appointed her. So, as far as I am concerned, I don’t see anything wrong with an office holder enjoying the terms and conditions of her appointment.”

In conclusion, Ansa-Asare maintained that there was nothing improper about the Chief Justice benefiting from the provisions of her position, adding that the issue should be viewed in this light.

ALSO READ:

• Names of petitioners, allegations against Chief Justice and her responses emerge 

• Chief Justice spent public funds on luxurious family vacation – Sammy Gyamfi alleges [Watch]

The identities behind the three petitions seeking the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo have surfaced following her suspension by President John Mahama.

Additionally, the full contents of the petitions and Justice Torkornoo’s responses have also emerged, although the constitution stipulates that all proceedings related to such petitions should be held in camera.

The petitioners have been identified as Kingsley Agyei, convener of Shining Stars of Ghana; lawyer and Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Ayamga Yakubu Akolgo; and Daniel Ofori.

The petitioners accused the Chief Justice of stated misbehaviour and incompetence, citing Article 146(1) of the 1992 Constitution, which reads: “A Justice of the Superior Court or a Chairman of a Regional Tribunal shall not be removed from office except for stated misbehaviour or incompetence, or on grounds of inability to perform the functions of his office arising from infirmity of body or mind.”

Meanwhile, President Mahama has set up a five-member committee chaired by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, a Justice on the Supreme Court bench to handle the inquiry.

Other members are Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, also a Justice on the Supreme Court bench, who was appointed in 2022.

Others in the five-member committee are Mr Daniel Yaw Domelevo, a former Auditor-General, Major Flora Bazaanura Dalugo from the Ghana Armed Forces (GAF), and Professor James Sefah Dzisah, an associate Professor at the University of Ghana.

However, there is no timeline on when the inquiry would be completed.

ALSO READ:

• Mahama could have been impeached if… – Sammy Gyamfi on suspension of CJ [Video]

• NPP threatens protest over suspension of Chief Justice [Listen]

In an interview on Adom FM’s Dwaso Nsem, the National Organiser, Henry Nana Boakye, popularly known as Nana B, announced that the party would embark on a series of protests to register their displeasure.

“We will agitate, we will demonstrate, and let the whole world know that President Mahama is not the man we know. He is not protecting our democracy, and the judiciary is under attack,” he stated.

He emphasized that the suspension is not just a personal affront to Chief Justice Torkornoo but an attack on Ghana’s democracy and the judiciary.

On Tuesday, April 22, President Mahama suspended the Chief Justice following consultation with the Council of State and the establishment of a committee to investigate three petitions seeking her removal.

In a statement issued by the Minister for Government Communications, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, the Presidency cited Article 146(6) of the Constitution, which mandates the establishment of a committee to probe allegations against a superior court judge if a prima facie case is established.

Although the move has been recognized as constitutional, it has sparked strong criticism from a section of Ghanaians.

He stated that the petitions calling for the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo are baseless, adding that no one deserves to be treated in such a manner.

In an interview on Adom FM’s Dwaso Nsem, Nana B suggested that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie should not support a deliberate and politically motivated attempt to oust Justice Torkornoo.

“Before Mahama even became President, he preempted the removal of the Chief Justice, and that is why these frivolous petitions are being entertained. If I were Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, I wouldn’t have even accepted the role as Acting Chief Justice because I’m not sure he would be happy if he suffered a similar fate,” he stated.

Nana B further expressed deep concerns over what he described as the silence of the Judicial Service on the matter.

In the wake of Chief Justice Torkornoo’s suspension, widespread reports suggest that Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie is likely to step in as Acting Chief Justice.

Called to the Bar in 1981, Justice Baffoe-Bonnie is the most senior among the nine remaining justices of the Supreme Court.

He worked as a Circuit Court Judge in Kumasi and served as a High Court Judge at Duayaw Nkwanta in the Bono Region.

Before his appointment as a Supreme Court Judge by former President of Ghana John Kufuor in June 2008, he served as an Appeals Court judge.

ALSO READ:

• Chief Justice’s responses to petition removal very damning – Sammy Gyamfi [Video]

• Chief Justice spent public funds on luxurious family vacation – Sammy Gyamfi alleges [Watch]

President Mahama announced the suspension of the Chief Justice on Tuesday, April 22, 2025, after a committee was established to investigate petitions seeking her removal from office over allegations of misconduct and incompetence.

The suspension, announced in a statement from the presidency, complies with constitutional provisions and follows consultations with the Council of State.

The President cited Article 146(6) of the Constitution, which mandates the establishment of a committee to probe allegations against a superior court judge if a prima facie case is established.

According to the statement, President Mahama determined that sufficient grounds exist to warrant further inquiry.

The committee tasked with investigating the petitions against the Chief Justice comprises individuals from various sectors and will be chaired by Justice Gabriel Pwamang.

The committee members include:

• Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang – Justice of the Supreme Court

• Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu – Justice of the Supreme Court

• Daniel Yaw Domelevo – Former Auditor-General

• Major Flora Bazwaanura Dalugo – Ghana Armed Forces

• Professor James Sefah Dzisah – Associate Professor, University of Ghana

About Justice Baffoe-Bonnie

Justice Baffoe-Bonnie was called to the Bar in 1981. He worked as a Circuit Court Judge in Kumasi and served as a High Court Judge at Duayaw Nkwanta in the Bono region.

Before being appointed as a Supreme Court Judge by former President of Ghana John Kufuor in June 2008, he served as an Appeals Court judge.

Paul Kwadwo Baffoe-Bonnie was on the panel of Supreme Court judges who ruled against a petition where the New Patriotic Party (NPP) requested that about four million votes be scrapped after alleging they were tampered with in the 2012 Ghanaian general election.

ALSO READ:

• 30 out of 31 Council of State Members’ recommendation led to suspension of Chief…

• Chief Justice should resign rather than drag this matter in public – Kpebu

In an interview on Asempa FM’s Ekosii Sen, Gyamfi explained that although he could not name the individual members, their advice significantly influenced the President’s decision.

“The President forwarded these petitions to the Council of State in accordance with the law and also to the Chief Justice. Out of the 31 members, 30 voted for an investigation into the petition. These are eminent personalities—not partisan or politically exposed people,” he said.

His comments come after President John Mahama suspended Chief Justice Torkornoo on Tuesday, April 22, following the establishment of a prima facie case in response to three separate petitions calling for her removal.

The action, in line with Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution, and after consultation with the Council of State, has set the stage for a formal inquiry by a five-member committee.

The suspension has sparked heated public debate, with many—especially members of the New Patriotic Party (NPP)—describing it as politically motivated and a witch hunt.

However, Gyamfi cautioned against hasty judgments and the politicisation of the process, stressing that no one has declared the Chief Justice guilty.

“Nobody in the NDC declared that we would sack the Chief Justice when voted into power, neither has any NDC member submitted any petition,” he said.

“But we are creating the impression that the Chief Justice is a demigod and above the law. Is that what people are saying? Are we governed by the rule of law or by the Chief Justice? Nobody is saying she is guilty, but there are issues to be answered,” he stated.

He concluded, “I don’t know who the last person is, but they all can’t be NDC members, have personal issues with the Chief Justice, or hate her for pursuing a partisan interest.”

Listen to Sammy Gyamfi in the audio above:

ALSO READ:

• Chief Justice would have to be suspended if… – Inusah Fuseini [Audio]
• Mahama could have been impeached if… – Sammy Gyamfi on suspension of CJ [Video]

• Chief Justice’s responses to petition removal very damning – Sammy Gyamfi [Video]

Speaking on The Pulse on Joy News, Justice Srem-Sai emphasized that the suspension appears to be a constitutional step aimed at allowing the Chief Justice to adequately prepare to defend herself.

“I think what is happening is a very technical issue which is specifically prescribed and dictated by the Constitution. It shouldn’t be politicized at all,” he said.

His comments come in the wake of heated public discourse following the President’s announcement of the suspension of the Chief Justice, pending the outcome of an investigative process triggered by a petition.

The Deputy Attorney General referenced a poll by Global Info Analytics, which indicated that a majority of Ghanaians currently support the removal of the Chief Justice. However, he cautioned against jumping to conclusions.

“At this stage, we are not even sure whether the allegations are proven. Finding that a case exists to be answered does not mean that the Chief Justice is guilty. It only means that the allegations are not frivolous,” he stated.

He also criticized what he described as contradictory and premature commentary from some political actors, noting that such statements risk undermining the integrity of the constitutional process.

“If you have not seen the petition and its content, it would be very unfair to describe persons involved in the process in such terms. I wouldn’t be in support of that kind of attention at this time.”

Justice Srem-Sai reiterated that the constitutional process has so far been followed appropriately and called on Ghanaians to remain patient as the matter proceeds through the formal investigative stages.

“There will be a time when the committee makes its findings that the Chief Justice is exonerated or guilty… that will be the time for us to pass judgment. Until then, we should be watchful of the steps ahead. If at any point we see that the process has violated the Constitution, we will be the first to say so. But for now, the processes have been complied with,” he added.

ALSO READ:

• Suspension of Chief Justice doesn’t mean she’s guilty – Kwakye Ofosu

• Mahama could have been impeached if… – Sammy Gyamfi on suspension of CJ [Video]

A statement from the Presidency announcing the suspension on Tuesday, April 22, followed the establishment of a committee to investigate petitions against the top judicial official.

However, the Minority described the move as a “coup on the judiciary” and demanded the immediate reinstatement of Justice Torkornoo.

“This is judicial overreach of the highest order, a textbook case of executive interference,” the Caucus said in a statement.

They cited the 1963 dismissal of Chief Justice Sir Arku Korsah by President Kwame Nkrumah after a ruling against the government, drawing parallels to the current situation.

According to the Minority, the suspension is a politically motivated “witch-hunt” designed to pave the way for the appointment of judges aligned with the NDC, further undermining judicial independence.

“This is neither good governance nor a credible attempt to reset the judiciary – it is tyranny,” the statement continued. “The people of Ghana will not tolerate the subversion of judicial independence for partisan gain.”

They vowed that any further attempts to harass, intimidate, or unlawfully remove the Chief Justice would face “fierce legal and public resistance.”

The Caucus also demanded a halt to all proceedings aimed at removing the Chief Justice until the judiciary has conclusively ruled on the constitutionality of the process.

“The integrity of Ghana’s judiciary is non-negotiable,” they affirmed, pledging to vigorously oppose any attempts to politicise the courts.

Read the full statement below:

ALSO READ:

• Suspension of Chief Justice a breach of Constitution – Lawyer

• ‘This is an assault on the judiciary’ – Frank Davies criticises Chief Justice suspension

On Tuesday, 22 April, President Mahama suspended the Chief Justice following petitions calling for her removal from office.

The President has also established a five-member committee to investigate the petitions during the period of her suspension.

Speaking on the matter on Joy FM’s Super Morning Show on Wednesday, Dr Aidoo appeared to find nothing inappropriate in the President’s actions.

He said, “President Mahama has performed his duty and exercised his discretionary power in the process with dealing with the petitions against the Chief Justice.”

Many, particularly members of the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP), have criticised the President for displaying bias in his handling of the case.

They argue that the President should have provided reasons for the exercise of his discretionary powers.

According to Dr Aidoo, President Mahama has done nothing wrong and only performed based on discretionary powers, saying, “Why should the President give his reasons?”

He explained, “He (the President) has a duty and discretionary power, the duty states that ‘he shall’, the discretionary power says ‘he may’ perform his duty, first followed by his discretionary power.”

ALSO READ:

• Chief Justice spent public funds on luxurious family vacation – Sammy Gyamfi alleges [Watch]

• Mahama could have been impeached if… – Sammy Gyamfi on suspension of CJ [Video]

Frank Davies described it as more than a legal process against Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, calling it a targeted political signal.

Speaking Tuesday night on Joy News’ PM Express, he said that while the Constitution permits such a probe, the broader context and political overtones raise serious concerns about interference in the judiciary.

“Well, as a trained lawyer, I would rather have wished that we are not where we are now,” he said.

“Because this, obviously, is the first in our democratic dispensation that the Chief Justice has had to be suspended based on petitions filed against her, ostensibly for her removal.”

To Frank Davies, the action reeks of something deeper. “I see it more as an assault on the judiciary, so to speak.”

When host Evans Mensah asked why—since the process follows Article 146 of the Constitution—Davies acknowledged the legality but insisted on the underlying motive.

“I am not saying it’s not due process. Of course, Article 146 is a constitutional stricture. So nobody can say that what is happening is not regulated by the Constitution,” he explained.

“It is actually a baby of the Constitution… the processes that have been followed thus far are procedurally and lawfully permitted.”

But for him, the issue isn’t the process itself — it’s the political environment in which it’s playing out.

“What I’m pointing to is the commentary that has gone on so far, the kind of statements made by very senior political actors.

“It gives a veiled impression that maybe this Chief Justice is not liked, so there should be an attempt to have her removed,” he warned.

He accused President Mahama of using constitutional due process as a cover for political intimidation.

“This isn’t just about accountability. It’s a political message,” he said bluntly.

“And that message is — if you’re not aligned, we’ll come for you.”

The former president, now a presidential candidate, announced on Monday the formation of a five-member committee comprising legal, military, academic, and public service figures to investigate multiple petitions filed against the Chief Justice.

The committee has been tasked with conducting a thorough and swift inquiry into the allegations.

But Frank Davies said the timing and tone of the announcement were deliberate.

“They want to look like defenders of justice, but it’s the judiciary that’s under siege here,” he claimed. “And we must not sit by and pretend this is business as usual.”

He called on Ghanaians to be vigilant.

“Today it’s the Chief Justice. Tomorrow, it could be anyone who refuses to play along.”

ALSO READ:

President John Mahama suspended the Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo, on Tuesday, April 22.

This follows the establishment of a committee to investigate petitions against the top judicial official.

The move, announced in a statement from the presidency, complies with constitutional provisions and follows consultations with the Council of State.

According to the legal luminary, the President acted within his rights and has not violated any provisions of the Constitution.

Speaking on JoyNews’ The Pulse Show, Prof Appiagyei-Atua emphasised the importance of allowing the constitutionally mandated process to take its course without undue interference.

“So, if we allow the committee to do its work as laid down by the Constitution, then I think what the President has done, in the first place, is not against the Constitution,” he said.

He further noted, “He hasn’t violated any law of the land, and therefore it is within his right to do what he has done.”

However, Prof Appiagyei-Atua stressed the need for due process and respect for constitutional procedures, noting that premature conclusions risk undermining the integrity of Ghana’s democratic institutions.

“I think the process should be allowed to be followed,” he added.

ALSO READ:

• Suspension of Chief Justice doesn’t mean she’s guilty – Kwakye Ofosu

• Ahiagbah accuses Mahama of undermining democracy over Chief Justice removal petition

He warned that the action could set a dangerous precedent for the judiciary and undermine constitutional governance.

President John Mahama on Monday announced the suspension of the Chief Justice and the formation of a five-member committee to investigate three petitions seeking her removal.

The panel, which includes legal, academic, military, and public service figures, has been tasked with conducting what the presidency called a “thorough, independent, and expeditious inquiry.”

However, speaking in an interview on Asempa FM’s Ekosii Sen, Nana Agyei stressed that even though the removal process may fall under constitutional guidelines, it must be carefully considered in light of its broader implications.

“This suspension, in the absence of a regulation — which is the Constitution — doesn’t make it right. The suspension of the Chief Justice, in the absence of a regulation or a law to guide the President’s power to suspend under Article 296 and Article 146, is a breach of the Constitution,” he argued.

He further questioned the transparency of the process.

“Secondly, what went into the suspension? Was it done in a manner that is fair and candid? How are we supposed to know, when the process is in camera? That’s why there must be clear regulations guiding the performance of such a duty,” he explained.

The lawmaker emphasized the need for constitutional harmony and public accountability.

“There are grounds upon which she might be suspended. But it doesn’t cease to be the exercise of discretionary powers simply because the President is receiving advice from the Council of State. We must go through the Constitution thoroughly to ensure harmony among its various parts.”

Amidst the growing criticism, the Minister of State for Government Communications, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, has clarified that the President’s decision does not in any way suggest that the Chief Justice is guilty of the allegations brought against her.

ALSO READ:

• Mahama suspends Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo

• Mahama could have been impeached if… – Sammy Gyamfi on suspension of CJ [Video]

Speaking on JoyNews’ The Pulse on Tuesday, April 22, Mr Kwakye Ofosu stated that the suspension is a constitutional step meant to allow due process, and not a verdict on the Chief Justice’s conduct.

“The President has not, by this step, that the Chief Justice is guilty of any offense or any of the claims contained in the petition,” he stated.

“The President is only enjoined by law after having determined prima facie to set up a committee to look into the allegations and offer the Chief Justice every available opportunity to answer to these claims in detail.”

According to him, three separate petitions were submitted to the President, each alleging various forms of wrongdoing by the Chief Justice and calling for her removal.

He explained that Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution lays out a clear process for such situations, which the President has strictly adhered to.

“In doing so, the president rightfully requested the Chief Justice to present responses after she had been served with copies of the petition. The Chief Justice did this.

“The president then went back to consult the Council of State to determine whether, when you set the responses of the chief justice against the allegations contained in the petitions, those petitions are frivolous or they merit further scrutiny,” Mr Kwakye Ofosu said.

He further highlighted that the formation of a committee to investigate the allegations is a constitutional requirement and is composed according to the law, with two Supreme Court Justices and three members who are not lawyers or part of the Council of State.

“The Constitution requires that this process be consultative. And so you find that at every step of the way, the President has consulted the Council of State,” he added.

“The President has kept faith with the Constitution and done everything by the book and ensured that his actions are well grounded in the 1992 constitution.”

ALSO READ:

• Mahama suspends Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo

• Mahama could have been impeached if… – Sammy Gyamfi on suspension of CJ [Video]