The Supreme Court has scheduled April 2, 2025, to hear an injunction application filed by Vincent Assafuah, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Member of Parliament for Old Tafo. The MP is challenging the procedure President John Mahama is using to address petitions seeking the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.

This development follows a formal request from the Chief Justice, who has written to the President and other relevant stakeholders, asking for copies of the petitions filed against her.

Assafuah’s lawsuit, led by former Attorney-General Godfred Dame, argues that the Chief Justice must be informed of any petitions concerning her removal and given an opportunity to respond before the President consults the Council of State.

Meanwhile, the Minister for Government Communications, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, has confirmed that the three petitions have been forwarded to the Council of State in accordance with Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.

Although the details of the petitions remain unknown, their submission initiates a constitutional process that could have major implications for Ghana’s judiciary.

The Council of State is now tasked with examining the petitions and advising the President on the next steps.

In a letter addressed to the President on Thursday, March 27, Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo formally requested the opportunity to respond to the allegations before any further action is taken.

“I am by this letter humbly and respectfully asking His Excellency the President and eminent members of the Council of State to forward the petitions against me to me, and allow me at least seven days after receipt of same, to provide my response to you, which response can then form part of the material that you conduct the consultations anticipated under 146 (6), before the possible setting up of a Committee of Inquiry under Article 146 (7),” she stated.

Assafuah, acting as a concerned citizen under Article 2(1)(b) of the 1992 Constitution, seeks several declarations from the Supreme Court, whose original jurisdiction he is invoking, regarding the interpretation of constitutional provisions governing the removal of a Chief Justice.

The suit argues that the President must notify the Chief Justice and obtain the comments of the Chief Justice before initiating consultation with the Council of State on the matter.

Reliefs sought by the plaintiff

The plaintiff requests the court to declare that:

The Constitution mandates that before a petition for the removal of the Chief Justice is submitted to the Council of State, the President must first inform the Chief Justice and seek their response, in accordance with Articles 146(1), (2), (4), (6), and (7), as well as Articles 23, 57(3), and 296.

Proceeding with consultations without notifying the Chief Justice violates Article 146(6) and compromises the constitutional safeguard ensuring the security of tenure for the Chief Justice.

Any deviation from this requirement constitutes undue interference with judicial independence, contravening Articles 127(1) and (2).

By failing to obtain the Chief Justice’s input before initiating the removal process, the President breaches the right to a fair hearing, thereby rendering the entire consultation process invalid.

The court is also urged to grant any additional reliefs it deems necessary.