By Nadia Ntiamoah
The ongoing legal and political storm surrounding the suspension and potential removal of Ghana’s Chief Justice, Her Ladyship Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, has now drawn a stern caution from one of the country’s most respected Supreme Court Justices.
In a rare and pointed dissenting opinion, Justice Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu has warned that the process of removing a Chief Justice cannot and must not be treated with the casualness of “changing a school prefect.”
Her remarks follow the Supreme Court’s recent dismissal of multiple applications challenging President John Dramani Mahama’s decision to activate Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution to begin removal proceedings against the Chief Justice.
The President’s move, which took effect on April 22, 2025, has deeply divided Ghana’s apex court and ignited a broader constitutional debate about the limits and oversight of presidential power.
Background to the Crisis
The Chief Justice’s suspension was prompted by three separate petitions submitted to the presidency earlier this year.
Two of these—by Kingsley Agyei of the group “Shining Stars of Ghana” and by Assistant Commissioner of Police Ayamga Yakubu Akolgo—were received on February 14, 2025.
A third, more detailed petition by Daniel Ofori, dated March 17, alleged 21 instances of misbehavior and four claims of incompetence in the Chief Justice’s administrative role.
Acting on these petitions, President Mahama initiated the constitutional removal process under Article 146, referring the matter to the Council of State.
A five-member committee led by Justice Gabriel Pwamang was subsequently formed to investigate the allegations.
However, legal pushback was swift. Three separate lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the legality and constitutionality of the removal process.
These were brought by Tafo MP Vincent Ekow Assafuah, the Centre for Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems (CenCES), and a private citizen, Theodore Kofi Atta-Quartey.
Split Court
The Supreme Court has since ruled on all three cases, dismissing them by narrow margins that underscore deep internal divisions.
In the Assafuah case, the Court ruled 3-2 against the plaintiff, with Justices Mensa-Bonsu and Ernest Gaewu dissenting. In the remaining two cases, the Court ruled 4-1, with Justice Yaw Asare Darko dissenting.
These rulings suggest that among the five justices who have participated in the cases, three support the legality of the removal process while two do not.
This divide has raised concerns about institutional cohesion at the nation’s highest court.
Justice Mensa-Bonsu’s dissent has especially resonated with critics of the President’s actions.
In her opinion, she emphasized that the removal of the Chief Justice is not merely a procedural formality but a constitutional safeguard that must be exercised with the utmost caution, reverence, and legal clarity.
“This is not like removing a school prefect,” she warned. “We are dealing with the head of an independent arm of government.”
Legal Objections
One of the most dramatic moments in court occurred when former Attorney General Godfred Dame, appearing as counsel for MP Vincent Assafuah, raised a preliminary objection to the composition of the judicial panel.
He argued that Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, who empanelled the judges and also presided, should have recused himself due to the potential conflict of interest.
“This court is deliberating on matters that affect the status of both the substantive Chief Justice and the acting one,” Dame argued. “It undermines public confidence and the principle of natural justice.”
Deputy Attorney General Dr. Srem-Sai, defending the panel’s legitimacy, countered that the role of Acting Chief Justice is a constitutional duty, not a personal benefit.
He argued the comparison was legally flawed and the objection meritless.
The Court ultimately overruled the objection and proceeded with the hearing, dismissing the applications.
