Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo has presented her initial response to President John Mahama regarding petitions that call for her removal from office.

Her submission comes just as the 10-day period granted for her to reply to the petitions ends today, Monday, April 7.

These petitions, which were sent to the President in early March, have drawn widespread public interest and stirred legal and constitutional discussions about the correct process for handling such cases.

Last week, Justice Torkornoo wrote to the President requesting copies of the petitions and asked for an additional seven days to respond, citing the need for due process and fairness.

Her response has now been officially submitted to both the President and the Council of State and will be reviewed as part of the consultation process outlined under Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution.

This marks a significant step that may lead to the establishment of a committee to investigate the allegations made against her.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will, on April 9, hear a case brought by Old Tafo MP Vincent Ekow Assafuah. The suit challenges the President's authority to initiate removal proceedings without first informing the Chief Justice, raising questions about the legality of the process.

This legal challenge adds further complexity, as it questions whether proper notification procedures were followed in the case against Justice Torkornoo.

The removal of a Chief Justice is guided by Article 146 of the Constitution, which allows for such action only in cases of stated misconduct, incompetence, or an inability to carry out official duties due to physical or mental incapacity.

Key Provisions of Article 146 Regarding Removal:

Article 146(1): A Justice of the Superior Court or a Chairman of a Regional Tribunal can only be removed from office for misbehaviour, incompetence, or inability to perform their duties due to infirmity.

Article 146(2): The removal process must follow the specific procedures outlined in the article.

Article 146(3): If the President receives a petition for the removal of a Justice, other than the Chief Justice, the petition is referred to the Chief Justice for a determination of whether there is a prima facie case.

Article 146(4): If the Chief Justice finds a prima facie case, a committee is formed to investigate the complaint. This committee consists of three Justices or Chairpersons of Regional Tribunals and two other individuals, not members of the Council of State or Parliament.

Article 146(5): The committee investigates the complaint and submits its recommendations to the Chief Justice, who forwards them to the President.

Article 146(6): For the removal of the Chief Justice, the President, in consultation with the Council of State, forms a committee of two Supreme Court Justices and three non-lawyers to investigate and recommend whether the Chief Justice should be removed.

Article 146(7): The committee will inquire into the petition and make its recommendation to the President.

Article 146(8): All proceedings under this article must be conducted in camera, and the person against whom the petition is made is entitled to be heard in their defence.

Article 146(9): The President must act in accordance with the recommendations of the committee.

Article 146(10): The President may suspend the Chief Justice or any other Justice during the process, following advice from the Council of State or the Judicial Council.

The outcome of the consultation with the Council of State, the Supreme Court’s hearing of the suit, and the actions taken by the President will determine the next steps in this unfolding situation.

As the process moves forward, the nation remains attentive to how the constitutional provisions will be applied and what consequences may arise from the ongoing petitions.