By; Charles Owusu Juanah Esq.
The removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo from office under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution marks one of the darkest and most troubling moments in Ghana’s constitutional democracy. While clothed in the veneer of legality, the process by which the Chief Justice was investigated and ultimately removed reveals glaring procedural flaws, political interference, and a dangerous precedent that threatens the very independence of the judiciary. As a lawyer committed to justice and constitutionalism, I strongly condemn this removal on every ground and call on all stakeholders, both domestic and international, to recognize it for what it is: a politically motivated act designed to appease partisan supporters of political activist.
The Petition: A Political Weapon, Not a Genuine Grievance
The process began with a petition filed by a private citizen, Daniel Ofori, alleging “stated misbehaviour” on the part of the Chief Justice. His complaints ranged from the reassignment of his court cases to allegations of misuse of public funds. Yet upon closer scrutiny, the petition revealed no credible evidence of corruption or abuse of office. For example, case reassignments were demonstrably due to unavoidable circumstances such as a judge’s emergency leave; administrative decisions well within the constitutional mandate of the Chief Justice.
It is also telling that Ofori’s hostility toward Justice Torkornoo partly stemmed from a dissenting opinion she delivered in a case he had won. To transform a judge’s dissent into evidence of bias or misconduct is to strike at the very heart of judicial independence. By entertaining such grievances as a basis for impeachment, the Constitution has been weaponized against its own guardians.
Flawed Proceedings: Due Process Abandoned
The five-member committee established under Article 146 was mandated to ensure fairness and transparency. Instead, it presided over a process that violated basic principles of natural justice:
• Denial of Legal Representation: The Chief Justice was reportedly barred from having legal counsel, leaving her to defend herself against complex allegations before an adversarial tribunal. This is a direct affront to the right to a fair hearing.
• Lack of Disclosure: Key documents were withheld, preventing her from adequately preparing her defense.
• No Cross-Examination: She was denied the opportunity to test the credibility of witnesses through cross-examination, a fundamental safeguard in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings.
• Venue Intimidation: Hearings were held in high-security facilities that evoked traumatic memories of Ghana’s darkest judicial assassinations, casting a shadow over the integrity of the process.
These are not minor irregularities; they are constitutional violations that delegitimise the committee’s findings.
The Committee’s Report: A Predetermined Outcome
On September 1, 2025, the committee recommended her removal, finding the allegations credible under Article 146(1). Yet this outcome was widely expected, given the political climate. With the ruling party facing internal and external pressure, the sacrifice of a Chief Justice became a convenient tool to rally partisan support. The President, bound by Article 146(9), acted on the recommendation, but this constitutional “mechanical obligation” cannot sanitize a process already tainted by political bias and procedural illegitimacy.
A Dangerous Precedent for Judicial Independence
This removal is the first of its kind in Ghana’s Fourth Republic. Its consequences will reverberate for decades. Judges, aware that their dissenting opinions or administrative decisions may now form the basis of petitions, will inevitably become cautious; calculating not on the basis of law, but on the expectations of political actors. The chilling effect on judicial courage cannot be overstated.
Ghana’s judiciary, once respected as a beacon of integrity across Africa, now risks being seen as an institution vulnerable to executive capture.
Hard Facts that Point to Political Motivation:
1. Timing of the Petition: Multiple petitions emerged only after the NDC had consolidated political power, raising suspicions that this was orchestrated to satisfy partisan demands.
2. Nature of Allegations: No credible evidence of corruption or personal enrichment was presented. The bulk of allegations involved administrative discretion and dissenting opinions, which are not grounds for removal in any mature democracy.
3. Partisan Commentary: Key NDC voices have openly celebrated the removal as a political victory rather than a constitutional necessity; proving the partisan undercurrents.
4. International Standards: The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary clearly state that judges shall not be removed except for proven incapacity or behaviour rendering them unfit. In this case, no such standard was met.Impact on Investor Confidence
Beyond its institutional implications, the removal of the Chief Justice has serious economic consequences. Investor confidence thrives in environments where the rule of law is predictable and the judiciary is insulated from political interference. By undermining judicial independence, the government has not only attacked a co-equal arm of government but the very arm responsible for safeguarding constitutional rights, contractual obligations, and democratic stability. Investors : both domestic and foreign; are now forced to question whether Ghana remains a safe haven for capital, contracts, and commerce when the judiciary itself can be so easily manipulated by partisan politics.
Sophia Akuffo’s Warning
Former Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo, in reflecting on judicial independence, once warned that the judiciary must never be subjected to political intimidation or partisan manipulation, for once that happens, “justice ceases to be justice.” Her words resonate powerfully today. The removal of Justice Torkornoo confirms those fears and vindicates her cautionary stance. By disregarding such wise counsel from a former head of the judiciary, the current political establishment has shown a reckless disregard for institutional continuity and the long-term health of our democracy.
The Way Forward: Reforming Article 146
The removal of Chief Justice Torkornoo has exposed serious deficiencies in Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution. The provision was designed as a shield for judicial independence but has now been exploited as a sword for political expediency. Reforms are urgently needed:
• Guarantee the right to full legal representation in all proceedings.
• Ensure full disclosure of documents and evidence.
• Allow for cross-examination of witnesses to test credibility.
• Introduce public oversight mechanisms to enhance transparency without undermining confidentiality.
• Redefine “stated misbehaviour” to exclude administrative decisions and dissenting opinions, thereby narrowing the grounds for removal to genuine misconduct.
Call to Action
I call on:
• The Ghana Bar Association to speak forcefully against this abuse of constitutional process.
• Civil society organizations to rally in defense of judicial independence.
• Parliament to initiate urgent constitutional amendments to Article 146.
• The international community, including the UN, Commonwealth, and ECOWAS, to scrutinize this removal as a breach of international standards on judicial independence.
Conclusion
The removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo was not an act of justice but an act of politics. It was a calculated move to placate partisan supporters of the NDC at the expense of Ghana’s constitutional democracy. If allowed to stand unchallenged, it will embolden future governments to manipulate judicial accountability mechanisms for political gain.
Today, it is Justice Torkornoo. Tomorrow, it could be any judge who dares to uphold the law without fear or favour. For the sake of Ghana’s democracy, its economy, and the rule of law, we must condemn this act, demand reforms, and ensure that never again shall judicial independence be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
