The Supreme Court has indefinitely adjourned hearing a critical legal challenge questioning the constitutionality of the process initiated by President John Mahama to potentially remove the sitting Chief Justice, Her Ladyship Gertrude Torkornoo, from office.
The hearing, which was slated for Wednesday, April 9, 2025, was halted due to the unavailability of approximately 50 State Attorneys who were attending a training session geared towards enhancing their capacity to represent Ghana at the ECOWAS Court.
The lawsuit, filed by Vincent Ekow Assafuah, Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, seeks judicial clarity on whether the President’s actions to begin the removal process complied with Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution.
At the heart of the matter is the contention that the Chief Justice was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations raised in three separate petitions before the President commenced consultations with the Council of State.
Represented by former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame, Mr. Assafuah argues that bypassing the Chief Justice in the early stages of the process violates her constitutional right to a fair hearing and threatens the independence of the judiciary.
The MP is asking the apex court to declare the President’s approach unconstitutional and procedurally flawed.
The case comes amid a politically charged atmosphere, as legal observers weigh the implications of the challenge.
Legal experts suggest that the matter may now be rendered moot following the President’s recent action of granting the Chief Justice a 10-day window to respond to the petitions.
Chief Justice Torkornoo has since submitted her official response, signaling the continuation of the constitutionally mandated process.
This legal impasse revives scrutiny over Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, which outlines the strict and elaborate process for removing a Justice of the Superior Court, including the Chief Justice.
According to the constitutional provision, when a petition for the removal of the Chief Justice is received, the President must consult the Council of State before appointing a five-member committee—comprised of two Supreme Court Justices and three laypersons—to conduct an inquiry and make recommendations.
Critically, clause 8 of the article mandates that the Chief Justice be granted the right to defend herself in camera, either personally or through legal representation.
The process must remain confidential, and the President is constitutionally bound to act based on the committee’s findings.
This case is not isolated. A similar petition by a private citizen is also before the Supreme Court, both raising questions about the constitutionality and timing of presidential actions in relation to judicial accountability.
While some legal analysts believe the current challenge may no longer hold legal weight due to the President’s subsequent compliance with due process, the suit has nonetheless ignited broader discussions on the balance of power, judicial independence, and the importance of procedural fairness.
The indefinite adjournment leaves the case in limbo, with no new hearing date announced.
Meanwhile, political stakeholders, legal minds, and civil society continue to closely monitor the unfolding legal and constitutional drama surrounding Ghana’s judiciary and the role of the executive in matters of judicial discipline.
BY Daniel Bampoe
