Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo has filed a suit at the Supreme Court challenging her removal from office by President John Mahama.
Filed on May 21, 2025, the suit seeks 16 distinct reliefs from the apex court. Central to her argument is the assertion that her constitutional right to a fair and public hearing has been violated in the process leading to her removal.
PEOPLE ARE READING: Tema Mayor Hon. Ebi Bright Pledges Inclusive and Visionary Leadership
Among the reliefs, Justice Torkornoo is asking the court to declare that she is entitled to a public hearing before any committee set up by the President to investigate a petition for her removal. She also argues that the President’s determination of a prima facie case against her is flawed, unconstitutional, and without legal merit.
Below are the 16 reliefs sought in her suit:
-
Right to a Public Hearing:
A declaration that under Articles 17(1)(2), 19(13)(14), 146(7)(8), 281(1), and 295(1) of the Constitution, the Chief Justice has a right to a public hearing in proceedings before any committee appointed by the President to investigate a removal petition. -
Conditions for Excluding a Public Hearing:
A declaration that such a right can only be excluded in the interest of public morality, safety, or order, based on Articles 17(1)(2), 19(13)(14), 23, 146(7)(8), 281(1), and 295(1). -
Waiver of In-Camera Proceedings:
A declaration that the Chief Justice can waive the privilege of in-camera proceedings under Article 146(6) investigations. -
Prima Facie Determination Must Be Judicious:
A declaration that determining a prima facie case in such matters is a quasi-judicial process requiring fair and reasoned judgment, per Articles 19(13), 23, 146(1)(2)(4)(6), and 296. -
Invalidity of Prima Facie Decision:
A declaration that the April 22, 2025 letter finding a prima facie case lacks proper legal foundation and is therefore null and void. -
Presidential Finding is Arbitrary:
A declaration that the President’s prima facie determination against her was arbitrary, capricious, and violated her right to a fair trial — thus unconstitutional and void. -
Violation of Judicial Independence:
A declaration that the President’s action and subsequent suspension attempt to unjustly remove the Plaintiff as Head of the Judiciary, infringing upon judicial independence. -
Due Process Not Followed:
A declaration that failure to provide the Plaintiff with a valid prima facie determination before forming a committee violates her rights to fair hearing and administrative justice, rendering all subsequent actions invalid. -
Suspension Order Should Be Set Aside:
An order setting aside the President’s suspension warrant dated April 22, 2025. -
Committee Chair Disqualified:
A declaration that Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang (2nd Defendant) is unqualified to chair the inquiry committee due to prior involvement in related rulings favoring one petitioner, Daniel Ofori. -
Prohibit Justice Pwamang’s Participation:
An order barring Justice Pwamang from chairing or participating in the committee proceedings. -
Justice Adibu-Asiedu Appointment is Improper:
A declaration that appointing Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu (3rd Defendant) to the committee, after participating in a Supreme Court panel on related injunction proceedings, violates the principle of judicial independence. -
Prohibit Justice Adibu-Asiedu’s Participation:
An order barring Justice Adibu-Asiedu from sitting on or participating in the inquiry committee. -
Disqualification of Other Committee Members:
A declaration that the 4th, 5th, and 6th Defendants are unqualified to serve on the committee based on Articles 146(1)(2)(4), 23, 296 and the Oaths Act of 1972. -
Restraining the Committee from Proceeding:
An order restraining the entire committee (2nd to 6th Defendants) from carrying out its mandate as outlined in the April 22, 2025 letter under Article 146(6). -
Any Other Reliefs:
A request for any additional reliefs the Court deems appropriate.
