An application for judicial review at the High Court has been filed by the Former Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, following her removal as a Supreme Court Judge by President John Dramani Mahama.

Her submission, through her counsel, stated that President Mahama did not act in line with the 1992 Constitution regarding her dismissal. She maintains that the Inquiry Committee, which looked into the matter, was not a legally recognized body.

Justice Torkornoo has asked the High Court to:

Declare that the President has no authority to remove a Justice of the Superior Court without adhering to the constitutionally required process.

Declare that jurisdiction to hear any removal petition against a Justice of the Superior Court lies solely with a body established under Article 146(4).

Declare that the President’s warrant of removal is “unlawful, null, void, and of no effect.”

On Monday, September 1, the President stripped Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo of the Chief Justice and Superior Court Justice titles. President Mahama cited recommendations from the committee that was probing petitions seeking the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo as a key reason for revoking her appointment.

The committee on Monday, September 1, described the first petition submitted by a Ghanaian citizen, Daniel Ofori, which called for the Chief Justice’s removal as valid.

Daniel Ofori’s petition was filed under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, which outlines the process for removing a Chief Justice on grounds such as “stated misbehaviour” and “incompetence.

“I, the undersigned, respectfully petition Your Excellency for the removal of the Honourable Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana, Her Ladyship Gertrude Sackey Torkonoo CJ on grounds of “stated misbehaviour” and “incompetence” under Article 146 (1) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.

“ I state below twenty-one (21) specific allegations of misbehaviour of the Honourable Chief Justice and four (4) allegations of incompetence, all of which relate to the Honourable Chief Justice’s discharge of her administrative roles and functions as head of the Judiciary, responsible for its supervision and administration,” part of his petition read.

The committee found her guilty of stated misbehaviour, including unlawful expenditure of public funds, abuse of discretionary power, and interference in judicial appointments.

These findings were tied not just to her role as Chief Justice, but also to her conduct as a Justice of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the committee recommended her complete removal from both roles, and President Mahama was constitutionally obligated to act on that recommendation.

Outlining the charges against the Chief Justice on unlawful expenditure of public funds, the Committee’s report suggested that, “In the opinion of the committee, the travel expenses which the Chief Justice heaped on the Judicial Service when she travelled on holidays in September 2023, first to Tanzania with her husband and second, to the United States of America with her daughter, together with the payment of per diem to the spouse and daughter of the Chief Justice, constituted unlawful expenditure of public funds.”

“Those acts… constitute avoidable and reckless dissipation of public funds and, in the view of the committee, to have been occasioned by the overall head of the Judiciary and the Judicial Service, whose duty is to guard public resources allocated by the Government, is caught within the spectrum of stated misbehaviour.”

According to the Committee, she abused her powers as a Chief Justice in the transfer of one Mr Baiden, adding, “The committee also stated without fear or favour that the Chief Justice unjustifiably breached the provisions in Article 295 (a) and (b) of the Constitution, 1992, in the way and manner that she transferred Mr. Baiden. It said her conduct amounted to misbehaviour.”

On interference in judicial appointments, the Committee highlighted the Chief Justice’s deliberate actions of bypassing the designated system of selecting Supreme Court Judges. Hence, the Committee labelled her as unacceptable and counted it as misconduct.

“Justice Torkornoo… cannot lay claim to ignorance of the nomination process and procedure, even though the process and procedure are not spelled out in the Constitution but in case law. Therefore, to seek, wittingly, to outwit this known process and procedure for appointing Supreme Court Justices amounts to misbehaviour in the eyes of the Committee and the Committee finds it as such,” excerpts of the Committee report read.

The committee, chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, includes Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu Asiedu, former Auditor-General Daniel Yaw Domelevo, Major Flora Bazwaanura Dalugo of the Ghana Armed Forces, and Professor James Sefah Dzisah of the University of Ghana further recommended that the Chief Justice be removed from office.

The Chief Justice was earlier suspended by President Mahama on Tuesday, April 22, after a prima facie case was established, following separate petitions calling for her removal.

A series of petitions filed against Chief Justice Torkornoo, beginning with one from a group known as Shining Stars of Ghana.

The group alleges she violated Article 144 of the Constitution by personally recommending judges for promotion to the Supreme Court, and further claims she ruled on a case involving the Speaker of Parliament without granting him a hearing, despite his refusal to respond to the suit.

Another petition from a police officer who is also a lawyer accuses the Chief Justice of manipulating evidence and abusing her authority, following an incident during a Supreme Court session where he was reportedly reprimanded, arrested, and detained.

However, court records suggest the lawyer’s conduct during proceedings prompted a unanimous caution from the bench, not just the Chief Justice.

A third petition, submitted by a private individual, lists 21 alleged misconducts and four claims of incompetence. Among the accusations is the misuse of public funds—specifically, that she spent over GH¢261,000 and $30,000 on a family trip abroad in 2023 and misused an additional GH¢75,580 and $14,000 during another foreign assignment without proper accountability.

Subsequent reports indicate two more petitions have been added to the list, intensifying pressure on the judiciary. Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, in her written response to President Mahama, strongly denied allegations of misconduct and abuse of office brought against her by a senior police officer, describing them as baseless and lacking grounds for her removal from office.

In July, an application for review regarding an ‘abuse of court processes’ by the embattled Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, was dismissed by the Human Rights Division of the Accra High Court.

The court presided over by Justice Amoako on Thursday, July 31, revealed that several claims, such as illegal composition of the committee and wrongful conduct of adversarial proceedings, were already before the Supreme Court.

Justice Amoako argued that relitigating these issues would result in duplication of litigation and abuse of court processes. As such, such claims were dismissed.

The judge also dismissed reliefs such as an order of certiorari to quash the committee’s proceedings and nullify its sittings on the basis that the Chief Justice did not receive a fair hearing, on jurisdictional grounds.

The judicial review application filed on June 9 this year sought nine reliefs, including a series of declarations that the Article 146 committee set up to investigate her removal from office had acted unlawfully.

She wanted the court to prevent the committee from proceeding with its work without providing her with authenticated copies of the petitions seeking her removal and the subsequent responses to those petitions.

The Chief Justice notes that the president's purported prima facie determination contained no reasons or justification and was entirely devoid of the elements of judicial or quasi-judicial reasoning expected under the Constitution.

As the proceedings of the Article 146 committee are to be held in-camera in accordance with Article 146(8) of the Constitution, the court noted that it could not inquire into matters raised by the suspended Chief Justice.

In response, Justice Gertrude Torkornoo proceeded to the ECOWAS Community Court in Abuja, Nigeria, seeking compensation worth $10 million over her suspension from office by His Excellency President John Dramani Mahama.

This forms part of 10 reliefs being requested. The Chief Justice's recent suit follows several unsuccessful cases at the Supreme Court this year after her suspension.

The former Chief Justice wanted the court to ensure she continues to enjoy the paraphernalia and entitlements of her office as the Chief Justice of Ghana pending the hearing and determination of the case.

The former Chief Justice wanted the court to ensure she continues to enjoy the paraphernalia and entitlements of her office as the Chief Justice of Ghana pending the hearing and determination of the case.

The applicant has also requested the ECOWAS Court to assign four precautionary measures to the country.

On Thursday, August 14, the Bar Council of England and Wales and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association called for the immediate reinstatement of Ghana’s Chief Justice by President John Dramani Mahama and the Executive arm of government.

“Immediately and without delay, reinstate the Chief Justice of Ghana to her Office. consistent with both the hitherto strong attachment to the rule of law demonstrated by Ghana and also, the constitutional duties incumbent upon them.

"And afford the Chief justice due and fair process in the investigation and determination of the disciplinary matters brought against her, including but not limited to full and transparent access to that process by her legal representatives,” the group demanded in a joint statement issued on August 14.

Additionally, the group asked the government for a proper and impartial investigation of the disciplinary charges against her, with her lawyers given full and transparent access to the proceedings.

Also both groups demanded the establishment of transparent procedural rules to guide the disciplinary process, including a definite timeframe within which the investigative committee must conclude its work and communicate its decision.