The caucus said its stance follows what it described as sustained attacks on its members after they raised concerns about the processes that led to Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s appointment by the President.

Addressing journalists on Monday, January 26, 2026, Minority Leader and Effutu MP, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, announced that the Minority would boycott the Chief Justice’s scheduled engagement with the Speaker of Parliament.

Mr Afenyo-Markin questioned the Chief Justice’s recent visits to state institutions, including the Jubilee House, asking whether the tour amounted to a “thank you tour” in appreciation of his appointment.

“As he heads to Parliament today, we, as the Minority, do not see him as a tolerant head of the judiciary. Members of the Minority came under attack when we criticised the processes leading to his nomination,” he said.

He added that the Minority would not participate in what it described as the Chief Justice’s “thank you tour,” stressing that if Justice Baffoe-Bonnie wishes to engage the caucus, he should do so at their offices.

READ ALSO:

• First Sky Energies to add 50mw to the national grid from Yendi plant
• 280 cases of corruption are under investigation – Kwakye Ofosu
• Attack on Jacobu police officers: Assemblyman provides details [Listen]

The Chief Justice explained that the visit was to formally express the Judiciary’s appreciation to the Ministry of Finance for its continued support.

He identified congestion in the courts as a major impediment to effective justice delivery in Ghana and noted that a number of interventions are currently being developed to address the challenge.

Justice Baffoe Bonnie further raised concerns about working conditions within the Judiciary, stressing the need for sustained institutional support to improve efficiency and outcomes across the justice delivery system.

On his part, the Finance Minister, Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, reaffirmed his commitment to working closely with the Judiciary and the Ministry of Justice to address the challenges confronting the courts.

He disclosed that, as part of measures under consideration, the Ministry of Finance is examining the possibility of allowing the Judiciary to utilise 100 percent of its Internally Generated Funds (IGF) to respond to urgent operational needs.

Present at the meeting were Supreme Court Judge Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, the Acting Director of the Ghana School of Law, Prof. Raymond Atuguba, and the Judicial Secretary, Ahmed Musah.

The Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr. Dominic Ayine, was also present.

ALSO READ:

Bishop J.Y. Adu makes interesting revelation after Yaw Sarpong’s death

Jungle Warfare School, French Embassy launch anti-galamsey training in Eastern Region

Former MASLOC CEO faces U.S. court today as Ghana seeks extradition

Speaking on Joy Midday News, Kwakye Ofosu stated that all required procedures at the presidential level have been completed.

“Every process that needed to be done has been undertaken. The process for doing so is quite clear. At this stage, the process has left the hands of the president beyond conveying the petitions to the Chief Justice. There’s little else that the president does in this particular instance. Everything now rests with the Chief Justice, who I believe will act in accordance with Ghanaian law,” he said.

His comments follow President John Dramani Mahama’s receipt of 10 petitions last week calling for the removal of the heads of these public institutions. Seven of the petitions concern EC Chairperson Jean Mensa and her two deputies — Dr Bossman Eric Asare, in charge of Corporate, and Samuel Tettey, responsible for Operations. The remaining three petitions call for the removal of Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng.

Under Article 70(2) of the Constitution, the president, acting on the advice of the Council of State, appoints the Chairperson, Deputy Chairpersons, and members of the Electoral Commission.

The law further provides that the Chairperson and deputies enjoy conditions of service similar to Justices of the superior courts, and their removal follows the same procedures used for judges.

The EC Chair’s conditions align with those of a Court of Appeal Justice, while the deputies correspond to High Court Justices.

Kwakye Ofosu assured the public that the Chief Justice will follow due legal process in addressing the petitions.

ALSO READ:

10 petitioners appeal to President Mahama to remove Special Prosecutor Kissi…

GES sets record straight on 2025 WASSCE, insists results reflect true…

Speaking on Asempa FM’s Ekosii Sen, Ayikoi Otoo said the Executive ignored cautions from lawyers that proceeding with a new nomination before concluding all three petitions submitted to the inquiry committee was inappropriate.

He explained that the committee had ruled on only one petition, yet a report was swiftly submitted to the President, who accepted its recommendation on the same day.

According to him, concerns raised by the Minority in Parliament during the vetting of the new Chief Justice were also disregarded, resulting in what he described as a premature swearing-in.

Ayikoi Otoo argued that celebrating the latest ECOWAS Court decision is unnecessary since the government has already installed a new Chief Justice.

“What is newsworthy is that the ECOWAS Court has made a preliminary determination that rights may have been violated and has given the Attorney General 30 days to respond to the substantive matter,” he stated.

He revealed that in October, lawyers wrote to the ECOWAS Court indicating that they no longer wished to pursue interim measures due to delays and instead requested a hearing date for the main case.

This development follows the ECOWAS Court’s dismissal of former Chief Justice Torkornoo’s request for interim orders to halt the committee investigating the circumstances surrounding her removal.

The Court also rejected Ghana’s preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction.

READ ALSO:

• Daddy Lumba did not marry Odo Broni – Elder sister tells court
• “I see myself in Shatta Wale” – Rex Omar on creative arts advocacy 
• I’ll put my GUM aside and join NDC if… – Osofo Kyiri Abosom

His confirmation on Thursday, November 13, came after the Committee, by a majority decision, recommended that Parliament adopt its report endorsing his nomination.

Presenting the report to the House, Committee Chairman Bernard Ahiafor said the decision followed extensive deliberations.

“The Committee therefore recommends to the House, by majority decision, the adoption of the report for the approval of Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie as Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana,” he stated.

Mr. Ahiafor noted that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie demonstrated “exceptional competence, a deep understanding of the law, and a strong appreciation of judicial ethics.”

He added that the nominee responded to all questions from the Committee with “professionalism, clarity, and intellectual depth,” qualities that affirm his capacity to protect the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

“The Committee is satisfied that the nominee possesses the qualifications, temperament, and commitment to constitutional principles required of a Chief Justice,” Mr. Ahiafor said.

The approval process, however, sparked sharp divisions in Parliament. While the Majority supported the motion, the Minority opposed it and demanded a secret ballot to formally register their dissent.

Following a heated debate, Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin ruled that the motion had been carried through a voice vote, declaring, “Honourable members, I think the I’s have it.”

The Minority, however, challenged the Speaker’s ruling, invoking Order 151(3) of the Standing Orders, and called for a headcount to confirm the decision.

ALSO READ:

• “They tried to provoke me, but I was prepared” – Afenyo-Markin on Baffoe-Bonnie’s vetting…

• Parliament must take Baffoe-Bonnie’s Ataa Ayi comment seriously – John Boadu

Speaking on JoyNews’ PM Express, he said the example cited during Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie’s vetting process revealed troubling judicial instincts.

“Look at what happened with the vetting of the Chief Justice,” he said.

“A CJ who can say that the convicted, and instead of giving him 30 years, he felt that he was still young, and if you give him 30 years, he may come back to see him alive and may harm him.

“Because of that, he gave him 70 years. That is very dangerous for our body politic. It is very dangerous for our justice delivery in this country.”

He argued that justice cannot be guided by emotion or personal fears.

“If a Chief Justice gives a ruling based on his personal feelings and benefits, how many of the cases that go to him will not be determined based on his personal benefits? This is very dangerous,” he said.

Mr Boadu, who is aspiring to be the opposition party’s chairman, added that “this is something that I would have expected the President to have withdrawn him, or Parliament to have rejected him.”

Commenting on the Minority’s walkout during the vetting, Mr Boadu defended their decision, saying it was meant to avoid legitimising an illegality.

“We walk out because we didn’t want to legitimise illegality,” he said.

“They shouldn’t have vetted him. They should have just let him go. If it turns out that the views of a nominee are injurious to the delivery of justice, must he go through?”

Mr Boadu said the Minority’s action was justified.

“The opposition made their point. The opposition felt that even the vetting wasn’t necessary because there is a case that can have an effect on what they are vetting the person for.

“So in our thinking, this should have allowed an acting CJ to continue till that matter before the court is cleared. That’s our position.”

He maintained that the Majority’s conduct in Parliament made any effort to raise concerns futile.

“What else were they to do? If we were even sitting there and raising these issues, considering the attitude of the Majority, what would they do?” he asked.

Mr Boadu also reflected on the NPP’s poor parliamentary performance in 2024, linking it to the party’s reduced influence in oversight.

“We had an abysmal performance in 2024,” he said.

“We had just less than 32% of parliamentary representation. If we had full numbers in Parliament, certain things would go through that would not go through.”

He pointed to the swift passage of the petroleum levy as an example.

“They imposed a levy on petroleum products. They did it within 24 hours. There wasn’t a major critique or review because we were not enough to kick against it,” he said.

ALSO READ:

• Chief Justice Nominee, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, vows to uphold integrity, justice and fairness

• If judges give verdict based on fear, how safe are we? – John Boadu…

Speaking on Asempa FM’s Ekosii Sen, Mr. Boadu said Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s remarks about the 70-year jail sentence handed to notorious armed robber Ataa Ayi were “unfortunate” and raised concerns about his impartiality in future rulings.

“What the Chief Justice nominee said was absolutely wrong. Such statements from someone expected to uphold justice are troubling,” he stated.

He further questioned whether Justice Baffoe-Bonnie could remain neutral in cases involving his personal or political interests.

“If a case that affects his personal interest comes before him, can we expect a fair trial?” he asked.

Mr. Boadu also urged Parliament to take the matter seriously, stressing that the legislature has a responsibility to safeguard citizens’ liberties and uphold judicial independence.

“The parliamentarians who vetted him have an honourable duty to protect the liberty of our people. This should not be about personal interest; it affects the government as a whole. If a case comes to him that touches on his personal interest, can we really expect a fair trial? If my case goes before him, I would be fearful because if our political views do not align, he may try to favour his personal interests,” he added.

Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, during his vetting before Parliament’s Appointments Committee on Monday, November 10, 2025, defended the sentence handed to Ataa Ayi, explaining that his decision was guided by both legal principles and the need to protect the public.

READ ALSO:

• I’m not a stranger in NPP – Dr. Adutwum recounts his longstanding journey
• Explainer: How Ghana’s Z-9 helicopter crashed
• Refuse collector jailed 10 years for attempting to rob US diplomat with a toy gun

According to the Ejisu MP, the Minority’s actions were misinterpreted as sabotage when in fact they were expressing concern over due parliamentary process.

“The Minority never intended to obstruct the vetting of the Chief Justice; the Speaker of Parliament is to blame,” Mr. Boateng clarified in an interview with Nhyira Fm.

He explained that the Speaker failed to present the motion on the nomination of the Chief Justice to the plenary for debate and approval before forwarding it to the Appointments Committee for vetting.

“The Speaker didn’t bring that motion up in Parliament to discuss, hence the Minority’s decision to state our views on the vetting committee,” he added.

The controversy follows the nomination of Justice Baffoe-Bonnie by President John Mahama to replace Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, whose removal has been challenged in court.

The Minority has argued that until the court determines the legitimacy of Justice Torkonoo’s removal, proceeding with the vetting and potential approval of a new Chief Justice could undermine the authority of the judiciary and Parliament.

“The Minority believes the vetting should have been suspended pending the outcome of the court cases challenging the removal of former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo and the nomination of the new Chief Justice, Justice Baffoe-Bonnie. Should the court’s ruling go against the approval of Justice Baffoe-Bonnie as Chief Justice, it would be an embarrassment to Parliament and the state,” Mr. Boateng stated.

Source: Barima Kofi Dawson

In a statement dated November 10, 2025, and signed by the party’s General Secretary, Justin Kodua Frimpong, the NPP argued that the nomination by the Mahama administration was premature since the removal of former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo remains the subject of active legal challenges before Ghana’s courts and the ECOWAS Court of Justice.

According to the party, proceeding with a fresh nomination while these cases are still pending “constitutes a pre-emptive assault on the judicial function” and undermines the principle of separation of powers.

The NPP also expressed concern about a potential conflict of interest, noting that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie previously presided over proceedings connected to the very case that enabled his current nomination.

Citing the legal principle nemo judex in causa sua — meaning no one should be a judge in their own cause — the party said the development “erodes public trust in the judiciary and compromises judicial independence.”

While acknowledging Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s years of service on the bench, the NPP described his acceptance of the nomination as “a failure of judicial leadership” and urged him to demonstrate restraint and uphold the highest standards of judicial integrity.

The statement further cautioned the Mahama administration against employing “political force” to influence judicial appointments, warning that such actions could endanger Ghana’s constitutional stability.

The party concluded by reaffirming its commitment to defending the 1992 Constitution, stating that it “will never relent in its duty to safeguard Ghana’s democracy and the rule of law.”

READ ALSO:

• KNUST issues ID cards to Campus Cats under new welfare initiative
• Gov’t to buy excess eggs for School Feeding Programme – Agric Minister
• Gov’t needs GH¢500m to tackle food glut – Agric Minister

Addressing the media on Tuesday, October 21, Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin said the caucus “registers its unequivocal objection” to the President’s action.

He argued that it “violates constitutional principles and sets a dangerous precedent for judicial interference.”

President Mahama, on September 1, 2025, dismissed the Chief Justice following recommendations from a Committee of Inquiry established under Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution.

The committee investigated a petition by a private citizen, Mr. Daniel Ofori, which alleged misconduct on the part of the Chief Justice and found the claims to be substantiated.

A statement from the Presidency explained that the President acted in accordance with Article 146(9), which obliges him to follow the committee’s recommendation.

Minister for Government Communications, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, also maintained that the process was constitutional and that both parties were given a fair hearing.

Despite these assurances, the Minority insists that the procedure undermines judicial independence and raises concerns about executive overreach.

Source: AdomOnline

READ ALSO:

• Eight teenage girls arrested for stealing over GH¢20,000
• Ghana’s economy back on right track – Ayariga
• 2 suspects in SML case sue OSP over photographs

Article 146, of the Constitution 1992 has become the “chewing stick” in the mouths of Ghanaians who have interest in one way or another ranging from legal luminaries, political actors, civil society activists, traders, mechanics through to “pocket lawyers” either arguing for or against the application of Article 146 of the Constitution, 1992. In my earlier article, I explained why it was not legally possible for the now removed Chief Justice to go back to sit and work as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

This article will explain why a citizen of Ghana who is elected as an Assembly Member, is safer, secured and well protected in law than the Chief Justice who is the head of the Judiciary (the third arm of Government). Now I shall proceed to argue my views.

Enshrined in Article 146 (1) of the Constitution 1992 is the provision that regulates the removal of the Chief Justice and all superior Court judges. It provides as follows:
“A Justice of the superior court or a chairman of the Regional Tribunal shall not be removed from office except for stated misbehavior or incompetence or on ground of inability to perform the functions of his office arising from infirmity of body or mind”.

Article 146 (6) of the Constitution 1992, also provides that; “where the petition is for the removal of the Chief Justice, the President shall, acting in consultation with 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 Parliament, nor lawyers.

Article 146(7) of the Constitution, 1992, 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.

Again, clause 9 of Article 146 provides that, the President shall, in each case, act in accordance with the recommendations of the committee.

From the Constitutional provisions Supra, once the President receives a petition from a citizen, he only acts as a conveyor belt, ie just to push the petition to the council of state for them to establish a prima facie, then once it is established, the President shall proceed to set up the committee as enshrined in the constitution. It is worthy to note that the president is obliged to act strictly on the recommendations made by the committee. On the contrary, an elected assembly member can only be removed from office after going through the provisions of Section 10 of the Local Governance Act, 2016 (Act 936). For emphasis Section 10 of Act 936, provides: “Revocation of mandate of a member (Section 10 of
Local Governance Act 2016 (Act 936)
Section 10.
(1) The mandate of an elected member of a District Assembly may be revoked by the electorate.

(2) For the purpose of revoking the mandate of an elected member, twenty-five per cent or more of the registered voters in the electoral area may petition the Electoral Commission for a recall of that member from the District Assembly.

(3) The Electoral Commission shall conduct a referendum to decide whether or not the member must be recalled

(4) The issue at the referendum shall be decided if at least
(a) forty per cent of the registered voters in the electoral area vote on the issue; and
(b) sixty per cent of the votes cast are in favour of the recall of the member.

Drawing inferences from Section 10, Supra, a citizen will have a “herculean” task to remove a “common assemblyman”. This is so because the law seems to give adequate protection to the Assemblyman by making it difficult for his removal. For instance,

How do you even get signatures of 25% of the voters in your electoral area to petition the Electoral Commission?

Will the Electoral Commission be willing to even conduct the referendum? Who will sponsor the referendum? At whose interest?

Looking at the voter turnout trend for District level elections in Ghana, it is practically difficult to get 40% and more voters turning out to vote at a referendum. Furthermore, after achieving the 40% turnout, the law states that, at least 60% of the voters at the referendum should vote in favor of the removal of the Assemblyman.

Juxtaposing the processes in Article 146 of the Constitution 1992 and that of Section 10 of the Local Governance Act of 2016, (Act 936), I am of the firm view that the laws of Ghana, consciously gives more protection to an elected assembly member in respect of his/her removal than the fragile protection enshrined in Article 146 of the constitution, 1992. The Chief Justice and all superior court justices are at the mercies of the president and therefore any President can use the law as a weapon against the judiciary and indirectly interfere and control the third (3rd) arm of the state. This, if not amended or changed to make it more cumbersome and rigid, the story of judicial control by the executive will continue unabated.
Another concept worth exploring is that our political system is streamed on a duopoly. This gives the impression of continuous division on political lines when such matters as judicial appointments and disappointments arise for public discussions.

I conclude as I began by stating that, in Ghana, you are more secured and safer as an assemblyman than a Chief Justice.

Clement Opoku Gyamfi is a private legal practitioner, football administrator and an activist.

His comments follow President John Dramani Mahama’s September 1, 2025, decision to remove Justice Torkornoo from office on the recommendation of a constitutional committee.

The Article 146 Committee found her guilty of financial misconduct after she billed the Judicial Service for personal trips in 2023, including a visit to Tanzania with her husband and to the United States with her daughter.

The report noted that per diem allowances were unlawfully extended to her family members, describing the act as a “reckless dissipation of public funds” and “unjustifiable in law or policy.”

Speaking on Channel One TV on Saturday, September 6, Mr. Cudjoe criticised the impropriety, branding it an “unwarranted imprest.” He dismissed arguments that finance officers should have offered better guidance.

“She was the head of the judiciary; she knows the law. The excuse that she didn’t know and needed guidance is neither here nor there. In other countries, she would have been in jail by now,” he stated.

Mr. Cudjoe further urged Ghanaians not to politicise the matter, stressing that accountability must remain at the heart of public service.

Source: Adomonline

ALSO READ:

• 40-year-old man in court for alleged involvement in car theft

• Man jailed 48 months for car theft

President John Dramani Mahama, on Monday, 1 September 2025, relieved Justice Torkornoo of her duties in line with Article 146(9) of the 1992 Constitution.

The decision, according to a statement from the Presidency, was based on the recommendation of a committee set up under Article 146(6) to investigate a petition brought by a citizen, Daniel Ofori.

The announcement, signed by the Presidential Spokesperson and Minister for Government Communications, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, explained that the President was constitutionally obliged to act on the committee’s findings. Her removal took immediate effect.

Reacting to the development during an interview on Channel One TV on Thursday, 4 September, Mr Umar argued that the step would enhance public trust in the judiciary and reinforce the principles of separation of powers.

“Far from undermining the judiciary, this is going to restore credibility to it. Ghanaians had lost faith in the institution, and the resetting agenda is now underway to rebuild confidence,” he remarked.

The Zabzugu legislator also linked judicial credibility to the country’s investment prospects.

“For any economy to thrive, there must be a reliable regulatory framework, and that begins with trust in the judiciary,” he added.

Source: MyJoyOnline.com  

ALSO READ:

Slain immigration officer’s family demands answers over alleged missing body parts

Increase domestic violence support fund – Gov’t urged to act as…

I shall address the following issues

1. Whether a non-justice of the Supreme Court can be appointed as the Chief Justice
2. Whether the Chief Justice must first be a justice of the Supreme Court or a justice of the superior court to qualify as a chief justice.
3. Whether the REMOVED CJ, can still be at the Supreme Court Bench?

Now, what is the position of the law?
Article 144(1), of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, provides that “The Chief justice shall be appointed by the President acting in consultation with the Council of State and with the approval of Parliament”.

Article 144(2), of the same Constitution further provides that “The other Supreme Court Justices shall be appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Judicial council, in consultation with the council of state and with the approval of parliament”.

Article 128(1) of the 1992 Constitution goes ahead to provide that “The Supreme Court shall consist of the Chief Justice and not less than nine other Justices of the Supreme Court.

Under Article 128(4) of the 1992 Constitution, “A person shall not be qualified for the appointment as a Justice of the Supreme Court unless he is of high moral character and proven integrity and is of not less than fifteen years standing as a lawyer”.

Article 146(1), Constitution 1992, states “A Justice of the superior court or a chairman of the Regional Tribunal shall not be removed from office except for stated misbehavior or incompetence or on ground of inability to perform the functions of his office arising from infirmity of body or mind”.

On the question of [Whether a non-justice of the Supreme Court can be appointed as the Chief Justice]-
The position of the law (Supra) [Article 144(1), Constitution 1992, provides that “The Chief justice shall be appointed by the President acting in consultation with the Council of State and with the approval of Parliament] is trite that, any lawyer in practice who is fifteen years or more can be appointed as a Chief Justice whether he or she is a judge already or not. The qualification criterion did not mention that the person must be appointed from amongst members of the Bench. In practice, we have witnessed several instances where non judges such as those in academia, private practice etc. have been appointed to the benches of the superior courts in Ghana.

Now, on the issue of [Whether the Chief Justice must first be a justice of the Supreme Court or a justice of the superior court to qualify as a chief justice], the legal principle per Article 144(1), Constitution 1992, provides that “The Chief justice shall be appointed by the President acting in consultation with the Council of State and with the approval of Parliament”. It again went further to say in Article 144(2), Constitution 1992 that “The other Supreme Court Justices shall be appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Judicial council, in consultation with the council of state and with the approval of parliament”.

From the above Articles in the constitution, it means that one need not be a justice of the Supreme Court or the superior court in order to qualify as a chief justice of the Republic of Ghana. Once you qualify under Article 128, the President can validly appoint you as the Chief Justice. However, since the inception of the fourth Republic, all Chief Justices’ have been appointed from amongst members of the Supreme Court Bench and so people are of the mistaken believe that to qualify as a chief justice, the person must have first served as a justice of the Supreme Court. This view, respectfully, is not grounded in any law. Presidents’ after presidents have adopted this practice out of mere respect for seniors at the bench.

Now, on [Whether the REMOVED CJ, can still be at the Supreme Court Bench?] – There are two schools of thought, some say because she was removed from office as a Chief Justice, then her earlier position as a Justice of the Supreme Court Bench will not be affected.
Others also say, upon her removal, she cannot revert to her previous position as the Supreme Court justice.

On the first school of thought:
With the greatest of respect, proponents of this school of thought have not been able to support their position or argument with any legal authority. Their views are more of common sense and a bit of emotions. In interpretation, Lawyers are taught that where the interpretation of a law may likely lead to absurdity, it should be avoided. In the case of those who say that the removed CJ can go back as a justice of the Supreme Court, citing that she was only removed as a CJ, such an interpretation to Article 146 of the constitution 1992 will lead to absurdity on the basis that for example [assuming the CJ was removed from office for a stated misbehavior like “bribery” and then later she’s asked to go back and work as a Supreme Court justice and she’s empaneled to sit on a matter, are we by this assertion implying that Justice will be seen to have been done? Certainly, not. [emphasis mine]

Again, Article 146 applies to justices of the superior courts in Ghana, and the framers of the law did not exclude the chief justice from that process which means that the Chief justice in ordinary sense is a justice of the superior court and therefore cannot come back to sit at the bench after going through Article 146 unsuccessfully. See the case of “Frank Agyei-Twum Vs. Attorney General.
Also see the case of Peter Utter Dery Vs. Tiger Eye P.I.

In conclusion, it is my considered view that the now REMOVED CHIEF JUSTICE cannot hold herself as a justice of the Supreme Court and therefore cannot go back there to work as any attempt to interpret Article 146 to tie it to only the office of the chief justice will lead to absurdity.

The writer, Clement Opoku Gyamfi is a private legal practitioner, football administrator and an activist.

Speaking in an interview on Ekosii Sen on Asempa FM, Mr. Kwakye Ofosu insisted that the President acted strictly in compliance with constitutional requirements after a duly constituted Committee of Inquiry recommended the Chief Justice’s removal.

“The fundamental principle of democracy is that nobody is above the law. If a highly regarded personality or even the head of an arm of government is petitioned, and due process is followed, then there is no issue,” he stressed.

He argued that it would have been a genuine constitutional crisis if the President had acted arbitrarily.

“If it was the case that President Mahama just removed her after the petition without recourse to due process, that would have set a terrible precedent. But every step of the way, the law was followed, and the Committee’s recommendation was clear.”

Mr. Kwakye Ofosu further noted that critics were “losing sight” of the fact that the process exemplified Ghana’s democratic values.

“Nobody is too powerful to escape accountability, and ensuring due process is the true safeguard against bad precedent,” he added.

Chief Justice Torkornoo’s removal follows petitions received by the President under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, alleging stated misbehaviour.

A Committee of Inquiry chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Pwamang probed the petitions over a four-month period. The Committee eventually determined that the allegations had been proven and, in accordance with Article 146(9), recommended her removal.

On Monday, September 1, 2025, President Mahama received the Committee’s recommendation, making Justice Torkornoo the first sitting Chief Justice to be removed under the constitutional process.

Source: Gertrude Otchere

ALSO READ:

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

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

• Mahama sacks Gertrude Torkornoo as Chief Justice

This comes as three separate petitions in Ghana seek her removal. Justice Torkornoo, who was suspended by President John Dramani Mahama under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, is already contesting the suspension before Ghana’s Supreme Court and High Court.

In a Facebook post on Tuesday, July 8, Justice Srem-Sai disclosed that the Chief Justice filed the ECOWAS application on July 4, arguing that her suspension amounts to a de facto removal from office without a final determination of the petitions against her.

“Essentially, Her Ladyship argues that by her suspension, she has effectively been removed from her official capacity without a conclusive determination, impairing her right to serve in her constitutionally appointed role,” Srem-Sai wrote.

Meanwhile, on July 1, the Attorney General filed a motion at the High Court’s Human Rights Division seeking to strike out Justice Torkornoo’s application for judicial review.

The State’s affidavit, filed by State Attorney Reginald Nii Odoi, described the application as containing “grave misstatement of capacity” and lacking “mandatory and essential parties,” rendering it defective.

President Mahama, addressing the issue recently, said his government is strictly adhering to constitutional processes, adding that the presidency has fulfilled its mandate and is awaiting the investigative committee’s findings.

Justice Torkornoo’s suspension has sparked heated national debate, with lawyers, civil society groups, and political parties, including the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the Minority in Parliament, raising concerns over its implications for judicial independence.

The investigative committee’s final report will determine whether Justice Torkornoo is reinstated or permanently removed from office.

Source: AdomOnline

ALSO READ:

• Minority pays glowing tribute to late Akwatia MP
• Bawumia mourns Ernest Yaw Kumi
• Ernest Yaw Kumi’s death: MP weeps uncontrollably on live TV [Video]
• Ernest Yaw Kumi’s family breaks silence on his death [Listen]

According to her, it was the Chief Justice’s only opportunity to speak after being denied a fair hearing in the ongoing removal proceedings against her.

Speaking in an interview on Asempa FM’s Ekosii Sen show, Diana Dapaah emphasized that fundamental human rights, enshrined in the Constitution, are just as important as the legal provisions governing the removal of a Chief Justice under Article 146.

“She has filed a judicial review application, which is now a public document before the court. The Attorney General, who is usually a respondent in such cases, has the chance to respond. So the process can still be addressed through the appropriate legal channels,” she said.

Ms. Dapaah further expressed admiration for the Chief Justice’s courage and resilience, calling her actions a defense of democracy.

“She could have resigned, but she chose to stand her ground. This is not just her fight; it’s a fight for democratic integrity. I admire her strength, and I’m very proud of her.”

Justice Torkornoo, suspended in April 2025 by President John Mahama following a prima facie case established by the Council of State, broke her silence at a press conference on June 25.

She raised serious constitutional and procedural concerns about the process being used to remove her from office.

ALSO READ:

• Nobody can accuse me of taking bribe – Justice Torkornoo

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

Reacting to the June 25 press conference held by the suspended Chief Justice, Lawyer Ansah-Asare described her actions as inappropriate and unbecoming of someone holding the highest position in the judiciary.

“I was very sad about the press conference. That’s not the way of the law,” he said in an interview on Asempa FM’s Ekosii Sen.

“If something isn’t going well, she should keep it to herself and not voice it out publicly. That’s something an ordinary lawyer like myself should do, not the Chief Justice.”

He warned that Justice Torkornoo’s comments could further damage the public’s trust in the judiciary.

“There was a survey indicating that 86% of Ghanaians do not trust the judiciary. If the head of that institution also declares she has no confidence in the system, what does that say about our justice system?”

Justice Torkornoo, who was suspended by President John Mahama in April 2025 after a prima facie case was established by the Council of State, had raised concerns about constitutional breaches and procedural irregularities in the petition to remove her.

However, Lawyer Ansa-Asare argued that the Chief Justice should have sought internal redress rather than taking her grievances to the public.

“It looks like she feels abandoned and is acting out of frustration, but we should not support her actions. As Chief Justice, she should work to restore public confidence, not undermine it,” he stressed.

ALSO READ:

• Nobody can accuse me of taking bribe – Justice Torkornoo

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

According to him, such actions pose a grave threat to Ghana’s democracy.

Speaking in an interview on Asempa FM’s Ekosii Sen show, Aboagye expressed deep concern over the silence of Ghanaians, warning that a “dangerous precedent” is being set.

“I get the sense that the NDC has cast a spell on the country. I don’t understand why we’re not taking this matter seriously,” he said.

He noted that the fact that the Chief Justice felt compelled to address the media was a sign of desperation and a reflection of systemic failure.

“Her media engagement alone should tell us how serious this is. She’s gasping for air, crying for help, and sounding helpless—and we are all quiet.”

Justice Torkornoo, who was suspended in April 2025 by President John Mahama after the Council of State established a prima facie case against her, broke her silence on Wednesday, June 25.

She raised constitutional and procedural concerns about the petition for her removal, describing the process as politically motivated and unjust.

Miracles Aboagye echoed her sentiments, stressing that the issue extends beyond the individual and strikes at the heart of judicial independence.

“She made a very important point—it’s not about her, it’s about the process. If it succeeds with her, it can succeed with anyone. What then happens to the integrity of the judiciary?”

He questioned the government’s commitment to due process and urged Ghanaians to reflect on the broader implications.

“If this is allowed to happen, I don’t know if any law will be strong enough to safeguard the office of the Chief Justice in the future.”

Aboagye also criticized the posture of the Minister for Government Communications, claiming it contradicted the government’s narrative of adhering to due process.

“It felt more like a fight than a defense of the law,” he remarked.

“We would be doing great harm to our democracy if the NDC succeeds in removing the Chief Justice from office. This is not just about one person—it’s about protecting the soul of our justice system,” he added.

Watch the video below:

ALSO READ:

• Nobody can accuse me of taking bribe – Justice Torkornoo

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

ALSO READ:

• It is a wicked lie to accuse me of selling STC lands – Nana…

• Farmer hospitalised after brother attacks him over land boundary

Speaking on JoyNews’ AM Show on Thursday, May 29, Mr. Oppong Nkrumah emphasised the need for careful consideration in such matters.

“The consequences of our actions lie ahead of us,” he said, highlighting the potential long-term effects of the proceedings.

“Posterity will judge all those involved,” he added, suggesting that future generations will assess the decisions and actions taken during this period.

Meanwhile, the chairman of the Constitutional and Legal Committee of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Frank Davies, has expressed serious concerns about the future of judicial independence in Ghana.

He warned that recent developments in the impeachment process against Chief Justice Torkornoo may threaten one of the cornerstones of Ghana’s democracy.

Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Wednesday, May 28, Mr. Davies responded to the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to strike out a supplementary affidavit filed by the Chief Justice in response to a petition before a committee.

While admitting he had not yet reviewed the full ruling, Mr. Davies said the broader implications were troubling.

Source: Myjoyonline

ALSO READ:

• Suspect remanded following alleged machete assault on carpenter

• JOYNEWS condemns attack on reporter Latif Iddrisu by alleged NPP supporters

His comments come amid growing public debate surrounding the legitimacy of the closed-door inquiry into three petitions seeking the Chief Justice’s removal. Justice Torkornoo has challenged the constitutionality of the process and filed an injunction at the Supreme Court.

Speaking in an exclusive interview with JoyNews’ Blessed Sogah in Abidjan, Dr. Spio-Garbrah remarked that the ongoing legal process must be respected, even by those at the very top of the judicial system.

“As Chief Justice, we are implementing the law. She says the law is the law—and so the law is the law—and the law is being applied to her,” he said.

“The incidents that are being cited, unless she proves that they are incorrect, must stand.”

While the Chief Justice has pointed to personal hardship and procedural irregularities in challenging the process, the former minister declined to speculate on her emotional state, choosing instead to reflect on the broader human condition.

“It depends on how each individual responds to adversity. We all go through it—we lose loved ones, suffer accidents—and how we deal with it varies. So I won’t comment on what kind of adversity she claims to be facing,” he said.

Responding to concerns raised about a change in the location of the disciplinary hearing, Dr. Spio-Garbrah maintained that the government has the final say in procedural arrangements.

“All I’ve heard is that the location where she expected the hearing to take place wasn’t the one the government chose. But ultimately, it is the government that decides where the hearing should be held,” the former minister said.

On the matter of resignation, Spio-Garbrah emphasized that stepping down is a personal choice, often shaped by a complex mix of professional and personal considerations.

“A resignation is an individual decision. One must weigh all the information available at any given time. But the good news, from what I know, is that the Chief Justice—and others in similar high public office—retire on their full salary.”

Dr. Spio-Garbrah questioned the rationale for continuing in office when, by law, senior public officials such as the Chief Justice retire on their full salary.

While Dr. Spio-Garbrah refrained from making direct accusations, he implied that the decision to stay may extend beyond purely professional or legal concerns.

“So if you’re going to retire on your salary, why worry about staying on? Unless, of course, you want to continue enjoying some privileges—like the ability for your husband and children to travel—which you might not have access to once you leave office. But the other standard benefits remain. It’s a personal judgment, and I’m not in a position to make that decision for her,” he noted.

Source: Emmanuel Tetteh

He made this assertion while speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile programme on Saturday, 24th May.

According to Prof. Khalid, the sensitive nature of the constitutional process, coupled with the high office involved, necessitates a degree of discretion to avoid unnecessary public spectacle and reputational damage.

“This is not just about an individual; it is about the office of the Chief Justice. We must safeguard the dignity of that office, regardless of who occupies it,” he stressed.

He further explained that an open hearing could risk politicising the process and subject the judiciary to undue public pressure.

“While transparency is important in any democracy, certain constitutional processes require confidentiality to ensure fairness and preserve institutional integrity,” Prof. Khalid noted, urging Ghanaians to trust the legal process.

Chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, the committee was established in accordance with Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution after a prima facie case was determined against the Chief Justice.

The decision to form the committee was made in consultation with the Council of State.

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 engaging with the Council of State, suspended her from office and tasked the committee with conducting a thorough investigation into the allegations.

ALSO READ:

• Asokore Mampong confirms Ben Abdallah Alhassan as MCE despite strong opposition

• Ebenezer Ekow Aidoo nominated as Asante Akyem Central MCE

Speaking in an exclusive interview on JoyNews’ The Pulse on Thursday, May 8, Prof. Oquaye described the secretive nature of the proceedings as a violation of fundamental human rights and due process.

He warned that the current approach undermines constitutional principles, noting that “It is a very, very important principle, and it’s a human rights issue.

The accused person — in this case, the Chief Justice — is entitled to an open trial. Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done.”

According to Prof. Oquaye, even the lowest-ranking staff in the judiciary, when facing disciplinary action, is guaranteed the right to appeal through the hierarchy of courts — from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, and ultimately to the Supreme Court.

He questioned why the nation’s top judicial officer should be denied the same transparency and safeguards.

“Nobody wants a star chamber court. Nobody wants secret trials. Even in our traditional system governed by customary law, trials are held publicly. The community has a right to witness proceedings,” he argued.

He further decried the notion of a small, handpicked panel — reportedly five individuals selected by one person — conducting proceedings behind closed doors and delivering a judgment without public scrutiny.

“If this is how a Chief Justice can be removed, then I will tell you I am not interested in the post.

“If this is a judge of the Supreme Court (who) can be cocooned into some room, five people. Nobody can see some, nobody can hear, some. And then after, somebody will come and tell you this is the verdict … we will be destroying the judiciary if we go this pathway,” he warned.

Prof. Ocquaye called on the Supreme Court to intervene and nullify any decisions made so far under this secretive process, urging that a proper, open trial be initiated in line with constitutional and democratic standards.

“It’s not too late to make changes. We must ensure justice is done the right way — in the open, for all Ghanaians to see,” he noted.

READ ALSO:

• Mahama’s first 120 days a total letdown – Afenyo-Markin
• Declare assets or face consequences – Gender Minister

Speaking on JoyNews’ The Pulse, Justice Atuguba dismissed the NPP’s response as “rubbish,” stating that their posture merely serves to advance their narrative.

The Supreme Court, in a narrow 3–2 ruling delivered on Tuesday, May 7, dismissed a case brought by the Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, Ekow Vincent Assafuah. The case challenged the President’s decision to suspend and initiate removal proceedings against the Chief Justice following petitions alleging misconduct.

According to Justice Atuguba, “Scanning through the events in the court, that is rubbish.”

He argued that the NPP had no objections when Justice Gertrude Torkornoo was making decisions in their favour, hence their public outcry over her suspension.

The suspension of Chief Justice Torkornoo has sparked controversy across the political divide. While the Presidency maintains that the move is in line with constitutional requirements, the NPP has strongly condemned the action, describing it as a politically motivated attempt to erode the independence of the judiciary.

The NPP also staged a protest in Accra, drawing hundreds of supporters, party executives, sympathisers, and members of other opposition political parties.

Protesters marched through major streets, wielding placards with inscriptions such as “Hands Off Our Judiciary,” “Stop the Interference,” and “Justice Must Be Independent.”

The demonstration, which culminated in the submission of a petition to the Supreme Court, the Speaker of Parliament, and the President, was described by organisers as a move to push the President to reconsider his decision.

The Chief Justice’s abrupt suspension followed allegations of misconduct linked to administrative decisions she reportedly made regarding judicial appointments and procurement processes.

Critics of the suspension argue that it sets a dangerous precedent and opens the judiciary to political manipulation.

ALSO READ:

• Galamsey: Parliament will review L.I. 2462 once formally presented – Afenyo-Markin

• Fifi Kwetey advocates for separation of parliamentary and ministerial roles

Mr Dame made the submission in open court on Tuesday, May 6, while arguing in favour of an injunction to halt the suspension process.

He contended that the steps taken so far lack genuine legal merit and appear politically motivated.

“All these processes to suspend the Chief Justice are nothing but a charade to remove the CJ from office,” Dame stated emphatically.

He urged the court to intervene and prevent what he described as an abuse of constitutional procedures for improper ends.

He made the appeal during the presentation of a petition at the Supreme Court on Monday, May 5, 2025, by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and its allied groups as part of the “Save the Judiciary” protest.

Addressing the gathering, Afenyo-Markin condemned the suspension, describing it as a grave threat to the independence of the judiciary and the overall stability of Ghana’s democracy.

“The judiciary is our last hope, and we believe that what is happening undermines our democracy. For the Chief Justice to be singled out based on a flimsy, pedestrian petition is simply unacceptable,” he stated.

He further accused the Council of State of failing in its duty to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and urged judges to put aside personal differences and stand together in defense of the institution.

“Today it is Chief Justice Torkornoo; tomorrow it could be you. You do not serve at the whims and caprices of a political party or government,” Afenyo-Markin warned.

ALSO READ:

• ECG will not be privatised – Mahama assures organised labour

• Fire at Dzorwulu Bulk Supply Point triggers power cuts across parts of Accra

Speaking as a guest at a public lecture organized by the Law Faculty SRC of Greenfield College in Sunyani, Mr. Tuah Yeboah said there was no justification for the Chief Justice’s removal.

“I have not seen any wrongdoing or misconduct on the part of the Chief Justice that would warrant such an action. The judiciary is a critical arm of government, and any interference from the executive undermines the strength of our democratic state,” he stated.

The lecture, themed “Whether the 1992 Constitution Has Outlived Its Use: Strengths and Weaknesses,” brought together students, legal scholars, and members of the public to examine the relevance of Ghana’s constitutional framework.

Addressing the issue of constitutional reform, Mr. Tuah Yeboah argued that the 1992 Constitution is not fundamentally flawed. Instead, he pointed to the attitudes and behaviors of citizens as the root of many governance challenges in the country.

“There’s nothing seriously wrong with the Constitution. What we need is a change in attitude. If Ghanaians take their civic responsibilities seriously, we wouldn’t even need a constitutional review,” he said.

He concluded by calling for greater behavioral and institutional discipline as key to strengthening Ghana’s governance systems and deepening democratic principles.

ALSO READ:

• ECG will not be privatised – Mahama assures organised labour

• Fire at Dzorwulu Bulk Supply Point triggers power cuts across parts of Accra

His defence comes in direct response to a recent resolution by the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), which labelled the suspension unlawful and urged its immediate reversal.

Speaking on Channel One TV on Saturday, 3 May, Justice Abdulai dismissed the GBA’s resolution as lacking legal merit.

“I completely disagree with the resolution and every single letter in the resolution that was passed,” he stated, emphasising his belief that the President and the Council of State acted entirely within their constitutional remit.

He further explained that both the President and the Council of State appropriately considered all material information when determining the existence of a prima facie case.

“The response of the CJ is not ordinarily supposed to form part of the basis for the determination whether or not a prima facie case has been made. However, in this particular case, considering that these advances were made and accepted by the President, it means that the Council of State and the President took into consideration the response of the CJ and came to the determination that indeed, a prima facie case has been determined,” he revealed.

Justice Abdulai concluded by reaffirming his confidence in the legality of the process.

He insisted that the suspension was neither arbitrary nor capricious but reflected a thorough application of constitutional procedures designed to uphold the integrity of Ghana’s judicial system.

In a statement released on April 30, 2025, he clarified that the President’s decision is constitutionally anchored in the advice of the Council of State, addressing concerns about potential bias or caprice.

“There is no unchecked discretion here because the discretion of the President to suspend the Chief Justice is checked by the fact that he must act ‘in accordance with the advice of the Council of State’,” he emphasized.

Responding to public apprehension, particularly from legal commentators and the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), Mr. Ayariga argued that the Constitution includes safeguards to prevent any abuse of executive power.

He noted that Article 296(a), which demands fairness and candour, is inherently fulfilled by the involvement of the Council of State.

“The concerns over a particular President’s potential arbitrariness, caprice, bias, resentment, prejudice, or personal dislike are equally expected to be contained by the mechanism of ensuring that he must obtain the advice of the Council of State,” he stated.

Mr. Ayariga also questioned the inconsistency of those challenging the President’s discretion, pointing out that similar powers vested in the Chief Justice have not received the same level of scrutiny.

Referring to Article 159, he highlighted that the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the President and the advice of the Judicial Council, enact regulations for the Judicial Service—yet the GBA has never demanded a constitutional instrument to clarify how such discretion should be exercised.

“That is because they appreciate that it is a discretion that is well checked,” Mr. Ayariga asserted.

In conclusion, the Majority Leader warned against attempts to distort the constitutionally defined process, emphasizing that even terms like “stated misbehaviour” or “incompetence” are to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis by the Article 146 Committee.

“I have not yet come across their meanings,” he remarked, “because the Constitution says the Committee should determine, on a case-by-case basis, what those mean.”

READ ALSO:

• Health Minister pledges three months salary to Ghana Medical Trust Fund
• Charles Bissue responds to OSP’s criminal charges

At the heart of the unrest is the recent suspension of the Chief Justice, widely condemned as unlawful, and the politically motivated dismissal of public servants.

“The country is indeed tense,” the Minority warned, “and the actions of the executive are pushing us toward a dangerous path.”

The demonstration, scheduled for Monday, 5th May 2025, is being organized by a coalition of opposition and independent political groups, including the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Liberal Party of Ghana (LPG), National Democratic Party (NDP), and the People’s National Party (PNP).

The Minority stressed that this protest is “not just a political action, but a constitutional imperative,” meant to alert both the Ghanaian public and the international community to threats against judicial independence and democratic order.

“These orchestrations are a clear abuse of the power and trust the people of Ghana place in the hands of the executive,” they said.

Further deepening the political crisis are reports of widespread dismissals of civil and public servants, seen as a purge based on perceived political affiliation.

The Minority described these terminations as “a blow to national stability, professional integrity, and economic justice,” citing their detrimental impact on young professionals.

The situation is compounded by troubling allegations of plots to remove the Electoral Commission Chairperson and her deputies, which the statement warned could “plunge Ghana into a crisis of legitimacy.”

Concluding their statement, the Minority Caucus reaffirmed its solidarity with all Ghanaians committed to protecting the country’s democratic values.

“This is not about partisanship. This is about principle,” they emphasized.

Echoing previous calls made in Parliament, the Caucus called for citizens to “rise in unity and resolve, not as spectators, but as defenders of the Republic.”

The statement ends with a strong call to action: “We cannot afford to ignore the repetition of these dangerous patterns. The time to act is now.”

READ ALSO:

• Health Minister pledges three months salary to Ghana Medical Trust Fund
• Charles Bissue responds to OSP’s criminal charges

The group argues that these actions are destabilizing the nation and eroding its democratic values. “The concerns that the blatant disregard for legal processes and the growing trend of judicial intimidation… represent a direct assault on the progress made in our legacy of democratic governance and rule of law,” the Minority stated.

The Caucus also pointed to troubling reports regarding the potential removal of the Electoral Commission Chairperson and her deputies, describing these developments as a “crisis of legitimacy in the making.”

On the mass termination of public sector workers, the Minority condemned the trend as economically unjust and socially destabilizing.

“It is unacceptable for such actions to take root… knowing with certainty the negative effects those decisions have on the youth,” the statement noted. The Minority emphasized that political affiliations should never be the basis for dismissals in a democracy.

The Caucus called for urgent civic action, urging citizens to stand up. “We must rise in unity and resolve, not as spectators, but as defenders of the Republic. The time to act is now.”

Echoing calls made on the floor of Parliament, they warned that history will not absolve silence in the face of democratic backsliding.

READ ALSO:

• Health Minister pledges three months salary to Ghana Medical Trust Fund
• Charles Bissue responds to OSP’s criminal charges

In a statement signed by PPP Chairman Nana Ofori Owusu, the party said the suspension was carried out in accordance with Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, following advice from the Council of State and a prima facie determination by the President.

The party emphasized that the Chief Justice was also given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her.

“We believe the President acted within the bounds of the Constitution and upheld the principles of rule of law and respect for human rights,” the statement noted.

The PPP, however, expressed concern over the Ghana Bar Association’s (GBA) call for the reversal of the suspension, describing it as “perplexing” and potentially undermining constitutional procedures.

“Such calls could be interpreted as an attempt to suspend due process itself,” the party warned.

The PPP urged all stakeholders to remain calm and allow the legal process to proceed without interference, adding that accountability must apply to all arms of government, including the judiciary.

READ ALSO:

• Binduri MP optimistic about lasting peace in Bawku
• Goaso Hospital appeals for urgent infrastructure and staffing improvements

The group criticised President John Dramani Mahama’s decision, arguing that it bypassed the legal procedures outlined in Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.

In a strongly-worded statement, CDM said the President’s action “constitutes a serious breach of constitutional norms, a direct encroachment on judicial independence, and a dangerous politicisation of the judiciary.”

The Centre cited relevant constitutional provisions and legal precedents, including Frank Agyei-Twum v. Attorney General, to support its claims.

CDM also raised concerns about the use of discretionary authority under Article 296, pointing out that no published regulations guided the President’s decision.

“Without such guidelines, the use of discretionary power is arbitrary, unregulated, and constitutionally deficient,” the statement said, referencing Ransford France v. Attorney-General.

The group described the development as a “perilous precedent” that could embolden executive overreach and undermine democratic institutions. It warned that unchecked actions of this nature could erode public trust in the judiciary.

In conclusion, CDM called for the immediate reversal of the suspension and urged civil society, the Ghana Bar Association, and the media to defend constitutional governance.

“The Constitution must not be weaponised, and the judiciary must not be punished for its independence,” the statement concluded.

Low voter turnout was a protest vote – Dr Asah-Asante counters…

According to the group, the composition of the committee undermines both actual and perceived impartiality.

“The makeup of the investigative committee is marred by political affiliations and past controversies,” the CDM stated.

It highlighted concerns about the inclusion of Mr. Daniel Domelevo, former Auditor-General; Justice Gabriel Pwamang; and Prof. James Sefah-Dzisah, questioning their independence in such a sensitive matter.

The CDM argued that the presence of a single appointee from the previous government—Justice Asiedu—was not enough to balance the committee’s perceived bias.

“This lone balance does little to counter the perception that the body is overwhelmingly tilted toward the Executive’s interests,” the group noted.

CDM also cited international guidelines, including the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and the African Commission’s Principles on Fair Trial, arguing that the committee’s formation violates global standards.

These principles, CDM maintained, stress the importance of impartial and constitutionally sound disciplinary processes.

As a result, the group has called for the dissolution and reconstitution of the committee with “a truly independent and politically neutral membership.”

The statement warned that failure to do so would risk both domestic legitimacy and Ghana’s democratic reputation abroad.

ALSO READ:

Police react to detention of 4 officers for arresting judge over…

Military training for National Service to begin in August 2025

In a post on social media platform X on Wednesday, April 23, Rev. Fordjour labelled the suspension as a “politically motivated act” that threatens the independence of the judiciary.

The Chief Justice was suspended on Tuesday, April 22, following recommendations from the Council of State after multiple petitions were submitted seeking her removal. However, Rev. Fordjour dismissed the grounds for her suspension as “unconvincing” and “dangerous for the future of Ghana’s democracy.”

“Yes, you may not be the first President to go down in history as the one who removed a Chief Justice on grounds of personal dislike. But that’s certainly not a noble and enviable precedent to follow either,” he wrote.

He further accused President Mahama of seeking to “entrench political control over independent institutions,” warning that such actions undermine the principles of good governance and the rule of law.

“The independence of the judiciary is paramount to the integrity of our democratic pursuit,” Fordjour asserted, adding that the move appears designed to replace the Chief Justice with a politically loyal appointee.

The MP urged civil society organisations, religious leaders, the diplomatic community, and citizens to speak out against what he described as a “vindictive and destructive course.”

Rev. Fordjour also linked the suspension to what he called a broader pattern of troubling actions under Mahama’s current tenure, including “unfair mass job terminations, violent political intimidation, unresolved power outages, and illicit activities such as drug trafficking and money laundering.”

See the post below:

Your Excellency Mr President, under your watch, as part of your reset agenda, politically-motivated witch-hunting has seen the mass termination of thousands of jobs in the public sector. As if that was not enough, your brazen determination to remove the Chief Justice reveals…

— John Ntim Fordjour MP (@NtimFordjour) April 23, 2025

READ ALSO:

• CJ’s suspension: Mahama has performed his duty – Tony Aidoo
• Passionate Guardiola continues to solve Man City puzzle

Speaking on Newsfile on JoyNews, Mr. Davies cautioned that while Ghana’s constitution makes provisions for the removal of a Chief Justice, the manner in which the issue is being handled risks undermining the country’s legal framework and democratic stability.

According to him, it is not the idea of removing a Chief Justice that is inherently problematic, but rather how the process is approached and presented to the public.

“It’s not the removal, per se, of a Chief Justice which is the problem,” he said.
“It is a constitutional structure where it is founded. So, if that is being exercised by citizens of this country, and there’s a valid basis for the removal of a Chief Justice, it should not be too much.”

However, Mr. Davies pointed to what he sees as an emerging trend of political interference, stressing that the issue has become overly “muddied” by partisan narratives.

“For me, the aberration is when the issues are so muddied and there’s a persistent refrain by people who should know better. That is where the worry is,” he emphasized.

He called for respect for the rule of law, urging all parties to allow due process to take its course rather than manipulate constitutional processes for political gain.

Ahafo MMDCEs urged to uphold President Mahama’s vision

Tsiame: Community development is my goal, not to become MP in…

Rev. Osabutey emphasized that while legal provisions allow for the removal of a Chief Justice, the process should be carried out with dignity and free from political influence.

“It should be in the law that the Chief Justice can be changed; however, the Chief Justice’s image shouldn’t be tarnished in the process. What is bothering the people is the politicisation of the office,” he stated.

He called for clearer legislation to safeguard the judiciary from political interference and ensure transparency in such sensitive matters.

His comments come after three separate petitions were submitted to President John Mahama, calling for the removal of Justice Torkornoo.

Watch the video below:

ALSO READ:

• IMF highlights Ghana’s efforts to tackle inflation and debt crisis

• Year-on-year inflation for March 2025 slows to 22.4%

The directive was contained in a letter signed by the Secretary to the President, Dr. Callistus Mahama.

This follows a request from Justice Torkonoo on Thursday, March 27, asking the President to provide her with copies of the petitions.

In his response, Mahama expressed disappointment over the leak of her request document, which has been widely circulated on social media.

Although details of the petitions remain unclear, the issue has sparked debate on its legal and constitutional implications.

With the timeline now set, Chief Justice Torkonoo must submit her response or risk further proceedings that could impact her tenure.

Legal analysts say her response will be crucial in determining the next course of action, including whether a formal inquiry into the petitions will proceed.

ALSO READ:

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

• You don’t always need a response from Chief Justice over removal process – Kpebu

]]> https://www.adomonline.com/you-dont-always-need-a-response-from-chief-justice-over-removal-process-kpebu/ Fri, 28 Mar 2025 10:47:04 +0000 https://www.adomonline.com/?p=2519790 Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has stated that the President does not necessarily need a response from the Chief Justice before making a prima facie determination on a petition for removal.

According to him, President John Mahama’s handling of the process is not a violation of the law, as some have claimed.

Speaking on JoyNews’ The Pulse on Thursday, Kpebu explained that the procedure under Article 146(3) of the 1992 Constitution involves two distinct stages. First, the President, in consultation with the Council of State, must determine whether there is enough basis to establish a tribunal or committee.

Contrary to some arguments, he noted that the formation of a five-member tribunal is not automatic but depends on this initial assessment.

“In order to make that prima facie determination, you don’t always need the response of the Chief Justice or any other justice of the superior courts,” he stated.

He explained that a petition could be dismissed outright without requiring the Chief Justice’s input if it is unsigned, lacks the petitioner’s name, is incoherent, contains insults, or fails to present any substantive claims.

“What the President cannot do is find merit in a petition and refuse to hear from the Chief Justice before proceeding to the second stage, where a tribunal would be formed,” he clarified.

Kpebu’s remarks were in response to former Deputy Attorney General Alfred Tuah-Yeboah, who insisted that Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo must be notified and given an opportunity to respond before any determination is made.

Meanwhile, the Chief Justice has officially requested copies of the petitions submitted to President Mahama seeking her removal from office.

In a letter to the President on Thursday, March 27, she appealed for access to the documents to enable her to respond accordingly.

ALSO READ:

• Chief Justice must be notified for comments before removal process begins – Fmr. Deputy…
• Chief Justice requests copies of petitions seeking her removal from Mahama

The suit challenges the procedural legality of President John Mahama’s actions regarding the potential removal of the Chief Justice.

Assafuah, acting as a concerned citizen under Article 2(1)(b) of the 1992 Constitution, is seeking several declarations from the Supreme Court, invoking its original jurisdiction to interpret constitutional provisions governing the removal of a Chief Justice.

The lawsuit argues that the President must notify the Chief Justice and obtain their comments before initiating consultation with the Council of State on the matter.

On Tuesday, the presidency announced that President Mahama had begun consulting the Council of State following three petitions submitted to his office, calling for the Chief Justice’s removal.

Key Reliefs Sought by Vincent Ekow Assafuah

The plaintiff is requesting the Supreme Court to declare that:

• The President must notify the Chief Justice and obtain their comments before referring a removal petition to the Council of State, in line with Articles 146(1), (2), (4), (6), and (7), as well as Articles 23, 57(3), and 296 of the Constitution.

• Failure to notify the Chief Justice before initiating consultation with the Council of State constitutes a violation of Article 146(6) and undermines the constitutional protection of the Chief Justice’s security of tenure.

• Any omission in this process amounts to unjustified interference with the independence of the judiciary, contravening Articles 127(1) and (2) of the Constitution.

• The President’s failure to obtain the Chief Justice’s comments before triggering the removal process violates the right to a fair hearing, rendering the consultation process null and void.

• Any other reliefs the Court deems appropriate.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the matter in the coming weeks, with the Attorney-General required to respond within 14 days of service.

READ ALSO:

• We won’t allow Mahama to remove Chief Justice – PNP declares
• Jide Kosoko claims some actresses use sex-for-roles to gain fame

Kwakye Ofosu’s comments came in direct response to the Member of Parliament for Manhyia, Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah, who expressed concerns that the process initiated by President Mahama, based on the petitions, could be politically motivated and set a bad precedent.

The Minister, however, rebuffed this assertion, insisting that the NPP lacks the moral authority to critique the government’s actions given its past conduct.

“Well, he will know all about politicization and terrible precedent. Was he not in this country when President Akufo-Addo initiated a similar process to remove the then-chairperson of the Electoral Commission? That commission is an independent body created by the Constitution. What does he have to say about that? When did he realize that following such a process set a bad precedent?” Kwakye Ofosu questioned.

“The NPP is not in any position to offer any lectures to the government in this matter, given the very things they did. If they thought President Akufo-Addo even had the power to do what he did, then why should they challenge it now? The Constitution says he had the power, and he exercised it. They were happy with it; they applauded and supported him. So, what exactly is the confusion about in this process?” he added.

Mr. Kwakye Ofosu emphasized that President John Mahama is merely fulfilling his constitutional duty by considering the petitions presented to him, in consultation with the Council of State. He reiterated that the President took an oath to uphold the Constitution and is acting within its confines.

“Yes, he may have criticized the Ghanaian judiciary, but all public institutions, including the President himself, are subject to scrutiny. No public officeholder should consider themselves beyond the provisions of the Constitution,” he stated.

Mr. Kwakye Ofosu further challenged the NPP to point out any specific constitutional violation in the ongoing process rather than making broad claims about political motivation and precedent.

He maintained that as long as the constitutional procedures are followed, no objections based on perceived political motives should invalidate the process.

READ ALSO:

• Akufo-Addo weakened Ghana’s judiciary with his appointments – Lawyer Ansa-Asare
• Ga Traditional Council announces noise-making ban ahead of Homowo festival

It follows the transfer of Her Ladyship, Justice Priscilla Dikro Ofori, a judge who was due to deliver judgment on November 28, 2024, on the criminal trial of Alexander Kwabena Safo-Kantanka charged with 26 counts of election-related corruption, before the High Court in Kumasi by the Office of the Special Prosecutor.

Joynews has cited a copy of Justice Priscilla Dikro’s transfer letter, dated November 18, 2024, signed by Chief Justice Torkono and copied to the Ashanti Regional Judicial Secretary, Supervising High Court judge, among others.

According to the letter, her transfer to the Labour Court 2, Accra, takes immediate effect.

This explains why Justice Dikro, who complied with the directives of the Chief Justice, was nowhere near her usual Kumasi High Court 4.

Her reliever, Justice Abdul Razak Musah, was sitting for the first time at the Kumasi High Court 4 on Thursday, November 28, 2024, when the embattled MCE nominee’s case was called for hearing.

In 2022, Mr. Sarfo-Kantanka was charged by the Special Prosecutor to answer the charges of corruption contrary to Section 256(1) and (2) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) as amended by Section 9 of the Criminal Offences (Amendment) Act, 2020.

The OSP accused him of influencing the conduct of about 26 assembly members who are members of the Juaben Municipal Assembly by gifting them an amount of GHȼ5,000 during an election to confirm his nomination by President Akufo-Addo in September 2022.

The meeting to confirm Mr. Sarfo-Kantanka, Juaben Constituency New Patriotic Party Chairman as MCE, was marked with drama as he publicly demanded the refund of monies paid to some Assembly Members to influence them to get him confirmed.

The president’s nominee was said to have assaulted one of the Assembly members, Patrick Yeboah, outside the conference room where the meeting took place.

He polled 5 out of the expected 26 in the first attempt.

His efforts were, however, not rewarded, as he failed in yet another attempt to get him confirmed as the first-ever MCE for that newly created municipality, carved out of the Ejisu municipality.

Though his votes appreciated in the second round with 10 votes, he failed to secure the mandate of assembly members.

Mr. Sarfo-Kantanka subsequently appeared before the court on June 1, 2022. The SP has, as of July 2023, completed his case against Mr. Sarfo-Kantanka after the state called six witnesses.

Frustrated over the failure to seek approval of assembly members, Mr. Sarfo Kantanka allegedly confronted some assembly members and demanded a refund of monies paid to them.

Video recordings of those encounters went viral on social media.

Defense Counsel Kwame Adom-Appiah then filed a no-case application, which was subsequently dismissed by the court presided over by Justice Priscilla Odikro Ofori.

This was after Mr. Safo-Kantanka had been granted bail with the sum of GH90,000 with two sureties, with all sureties being bearers of Ghana Cards, with one to be justified with landed property.

As it stands now, Chief Justice Torkono has the prerogative to give a warrant to the outgone Justice Priscilla Dikro Ofori to sit on the case.

ALSO READ:

• Judge transferred just before judgment in case against failed Juaben MCE nominee

• Judicial Service clarifies transfer of judge in case against failed Juaben MCE nominee

Speaking at the 2024 Enhanced Chief Justice’s Mentoring Programme in Accra on Wednesday, she also urged them to demonstrate greater commitment to lawful behavior and conduct.

The 2024 Enhanced Chief Justice’s Mentoring Programme was held under the theme: “I Pledge Myself to the Service of Ghana.”

The programme brought together students from six schools with established Justice Clubs: St. Mary’s Senior High School, Accra High School, Presbyterian Boys’ Senior High School, SOS Hermann Gmeiner International College, Chemu Senior High Technical School, and Tema Senior High School.

Other participating groups included the Orange Girls (Kayayei) and the United Nations Youth Association.

The Chief Justice’s mentoring initiative is designed to positively influence and impact the nation at multiple levels, aiming to boost the confidence of young people while instilling in them the values of law, legality, and justice within schools, families, and communities.

Through the programme, students gained an understanding of the workings of the justice sector in the country.

Chief Justice Torkornoo noted that involvement in clubs, societies, and associations provided opportunities for knowledge and enlightenment beyond what was taught in the classroom.

These activities, she observed, were not only enjoyable but also bridged knowledge gaps, strengthened ethical values, fostered leadership skills, and built resilience against negative influences.

The Chief Justice explained that this was the rationale behind her proposal to introduce Justice Clubs into schools and communities.

The aim, she said, was to deepen understanding of the rule of law, legality, and justice, thereby promoting these fundamental principles throughout the nation.

Chief Justice Torkornoo stated that the Judiciary had made a deliberate choice to engage with various groups, including those in schools, marketplaces, and underserved communities.

She said the Judiciary was committed to demystifying its work and making it more accessible to the public, explaining that this was being achieved through consistent and purposeful interactions in settings that are both enjoyable and conducive to continuous learning.

“Next year, we will be on the road to inaugurate more Justice Clubs in the regions of Ghana.”

Touching on the theme, the Chief Justice stressed the need to devote oneself to the service of the country, adding, “We are one nation, one people, and have one destiny.

“We must build this nation ourselves and enjoy it ourselves. But we can only do so if we all contribute to equipping each other with what we have for the task,” she said.

The Chief Justice urged people to challenge the belief that “service to the nation could only be delivered from specific positions.”

She emphasized that a nation’s greatness is built on the collective efforts of all its citizens.

“It is your individual contributions that will make this country, like the nations we admire, great, prosperous, and strong,” she said.

Chief Justice Torkornoo encouraged the students to view themselves as capable of generating ideas, innovations, and projects that can bring positive benefits to the larger community.

Mrs. Efua Ghartey, President of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA), urged everyone to contribute in numerous ways to building a just, equitable, and prosperous society.

She said that the legal profession was not just a career but a calling that extended far beyond courtrooms and legal documents.

“Lawyers are architects of justice, guardians of human rights, and agents of social change… Lawyers have been at the forefront of national progress.

“We have been instruments in strengthening democratic institutions and creating legal frameworks that promote economic development,” she said.

Mr. Sam Okudzeto, a veteran lawyer, advised the students to humble themselves and learn from their more experienced superiors.

He noted that the legal profession offered individuals the opportunity to deeply understand issues and critically examine documents.

He also urged the students to embrace technology as they pursued their legal education.

Justice Eric Kyei Baffour, a Court of Appeal Judge, encouraged the students to seek guidance from God, believe in their abilities, and work diligently to achieve their goals.

After observing some court proceedings, lawyers and judges from both the Superior and Lower Courts took the time to engage with the participants.

ALSO READ:

Kwabena Agyepong slams Prof Frimpong-Boateng over NPP

EC’s collation centre media limit could undermine transparency – Dr Kojo…

These include the Speaker of Parliament, Clerk of Parliament, and Members of Parliament (MPs).

According to a circular issued by the Chief Justice, court processes intended for the Speaker of Parliament should be served to the Legal Department of the Parliamentary Service, and only on Mondays during working hours.

For the Clerk of Parliament, processes should be served directly to the Clerk of Parliament between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. on Mondays or any weekday from Tuesday to Friday, with this procedure also applying during Parliamentary recesses.

The Clerk of Parliament is also required to inform the Judiciary of Parliament’s recess schedule.

Regarding Members of Parliament, the circular specified that court processes should be served directly to MPs on Mondays or between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. on Tuesdays to Fridays, as well as during Parliamentary recesses.

These directives follow concerns raised by the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, who alerted the Chief Justice to potential breaches of Articles 117 and 118 of the 1992 Constitution.

The Speaker had informed the Chief Justice that court processes were being served on MPs, the Speaker, and the Clerk while they were engaged in official Parliamentary duties, which could disrupt their work.

Article 117 of the Constitution states: “Civil or criminal process coming from any court or place out of Parliament shall not be served on, or executed in relation to, the Speaker or a member or the Clerk of Parliament while he is on his way to, attending at, or returning from any proceedings of Parliament.”

Article 118 (1) of the Constitution also provides that “Neither the Speaker, nor a member of, nor the Clerk to Parliament shall be compelled while attending Parliament to appear as a witness in any court or place out of Parliament.”

Article 118 (2) further states: “The certificate of the Speaker that a member or the Clerk is attending the proceedings of Parliament is conclusive evidence of attendance at Parliament.”

The circular clarified that the provisions in Articles 117 and 118 of the 1992 Constitution ensure that the Speaker of Parliament, Members of Parliament (MPs), and the Clerk of Parliament cannot be served with any court process or compelled to appear as witnesses in court while Parliament is in session.

The only exceptions to this rule are if Parliament is not in session or if the Speaker certifies that the office holder in question was not on their way to, attending, or returning from any Parliamentary proceedings.

ALSO READ:

• Bawku conflict: Chief Justice orders reopening of four courts in Upper East

• Chief Justice launches 5th Edition of Election Adjudication Manual [Photos]

In a recent article, he described the GBA’s support as “dangerous for our Constitution, democracy, and the rule of law.”

He cautioned that unqualified loyalty to the Chief Justice’s administrative decisions risks undermining the independence of the judicial system.

“The unbridled support of anything and everything the Chief Justice says or does… borders on sycophancy,” Mr. Amidu warned.

He further stated that citizens should expect judicial decisions that are both independent and transparent.

Mr. Amidu’s critique extended to the relationship between the judiciary and national security, questioning whether the Chief Justice had acted on independent judgment or based on “instructions… from the National Security Council.”

He emphasized the need for greater transparency in decisions affecting public access to justice, especially in the wake of electoral season tensions.

The former Attorney General openly criticized the Chief Justice’s administrative decision to close courts in Bawku and surrounding areas.

He described the decision to close courts, including the regional capital Bolgatanga, as “unprecedented” and detrimental to citizens’ rights.

The Chief Justice, according to a memorandum issued by the Judicial Secretary, justified the closures as a safety measure due to escalating security concerns.

However, Mr. Amidu deemed the closure rationale “naïve,” pointing out that Bolgatanga has historically remained unaffected by Bawku’s sporadic violence.

He stated that “throughout the Bawku conflict… the regional capital has never been… in the conflict area.”

The former AG emphasized the potential legal ramifications of suspending court functions just weeks before the national elections, arguing that it infringes upon citizens’ access to justice and could disrupt the judicial review of election-related issues.

“We the People demand Parliamentary oversight of the administrative decision… to close the High Court in Bolgatanga and its environs,” he stated.

Mr. Amidu also expressed concern that the closure decision lacked sufficient input from local legal stakeholders, questioning the Chief Justice’s consultations.

This decision follows disagreements over the jurisdiction where the case should be heard. While the mining company cites security concerns as the reason for wanting the matter heard in the Ashanti Region, the paramount chief’s lawyer argues that the case should be heard in the Central Region, where the alleged incident occurred.

Delivering his ruling on the matter, His Lordship Samuel Faraday Johnson noted that, although the law requires cases involving immovable property to be heard in the specific region, the security concerns raised by the plaintiff cannot be disregarded.

The judge has, therefore, referred the matter to the Chief Justice to determine the appropriate jurisdiction for the hearing.

The judge, who is also presiding over a separate case where nine other mining companies have filed a suit against the same paramount chief for alleged illegal mining, stated that the Chief Justice’s determination on the first case will influence the jurisdictional decision for the new case.

Following the court proceedings, the plaintiff’s lawyer, Hansen Kwadwo Kodua expressed satisfaction with the court’s ruling.

“I’m fully aware of whatever I was doing for my client. We wanted the court to choose a convenient and secure venue for the parties. Not that I didn’t know the law, so for me, referring the matter to the Chief Justice is the best that can be done in this particular matter.

“We’re satisfied in the sense that the Chief Justice is now going to decide which region should entertain the matter based upon the matters that we have deposed to in our Affidavit, so we’re on course that it is.”

He, however, accused the Paramount Chief of disrespecting the court by failing to attend court proceedings.

“We all show respect to the court, if you are summoned before a court, out of respect, you appear to show that you also respect the court. But you can’t choose to stay away and you don’t tell the court why you are constantly absenting yourself from the court.

“That is what I was complaining about that it doesn’t show respect, he’s a chief and as a chief, he should know better. We will wait for the forum to be selected by the Chief Justice.”

Nine additional mining companies have filed a suit against the Chief, accusing him of engaging in illegal mining activities on their concessions.

The companies alleged that the Chief has illegally trespassed on their mining lands, intensifying the legal troubles he already faces.

ALSO READ:

Mahama takes on gov’t for neglecting Yendi-Chereponi roads

2024 Women in Agribusiness week celebration held in Ho

I regret getting married early – Akua GMB