Former Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo is seeking a review of a Supreme Court ruling delivered on May 28, 2026, in proceedings related to petitions for her removal from office.
An application filed at the Supreme Court through her lawyers on June 23, 2026, is asking the apex court to set aside orders made on May 28 on the grounds that they were made in breach of natural justice and occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
The application argues that the court proceeded to hear and determine matters after her lawyer had withdrawn from the proceedings, leaving her without legal representation. The applicant contends this violated the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice, which guarantees every party the right to be heard before a decision is taken against them.
The application further states that any decision reached in violation of this right was a nullity and ought to be set aside, and that the Supreme Court’s review jurisdiction existed precisely to correct such fundamental errors.
The orders being challenged
The application specifically targets several orders made by the court on May 28, including orders allowing the hearing to proceed in her absence, directing the Registrar to serve notice of her lawyer’s withdrawal, granting leave to file further processes before judgment, adopting memoranda of issues in two writs, consolidating the actions for determination, and adjourning the consolidated matter to July 2, 2026, for judgment.
Background
The application is the latest development in a prolonged legal battle following Torkornoo’s removal from office on September 1, 2025 — the first removal of a sitting Chief Justice under the 1992 Constitution.
The process began in March 2025 when petitions were submitted to President John Dramani Mahama seeking her removal for alleged stated misbehaviour. Following a prima facie determination, President Mahama suspended her on April 22, 2025, and constituted a five-member committee chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang to investigate. The committee found that grounds of stated misbehaviour had been established and recommended her removal.
Her removal has since triggered a series of legal challenges at both the Supreme Court and the ECOWAS Court of Justice. Last Wednesday, the ECOWAS Community Court dismissed her application challenging the removal, affirming the legality of the process after considering seven issues distilled from the application and the response.
