SC Adjourns 4 Torkornoo Cases Indefinitely

Gertrude Torkornoo

 

The Supreme Court (SC) has adjourned four separate cases challenging the processes leading to removal of Gertrude Torkornoo as Chief Justice last year.

One of the writs was filed by the former Chief Justice herself while the remaining were filed by others, including the Member of Parliament (MP) for Old Tafo, Vincent Ekow Assafuah; a private citizen, Theodore Kofi Attah-Quartey as well as Centre for Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems (CENCES).

Meanwhile, a seven-member panel of the court presided over by Justice Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, and assisted by Justices Yonny Kulendi, Henry Anthony Kwofie, Kofi Dzamefe, Dennis Adjei, Janapare Kwodwo-Bartels and Hafisata Amaleboba, has struck out without leave to re-file,  a writ filed by private citizen, Ebenezer Osei-Owusu challenging the removal of the former Chief Justice, holding that the writ was procedurally flawed and he had failed to file a statement of case within the timeline provided by the rules of court.

Removal

Justice Torkornoo was removed from office as Chief Justice and a Supreme Court judge on September 1, 2025, following the receipt of the report of a five-member committee that probed a petition filed against her.

She became the first ever Chief Justice to be removed from office following the recommendation of a committee probing allegations of misconduct and misbehaviour.

Prior to that, she was suspended on April 22, 2025, following the setting up of the committee to probe the three petitions calling for her removal.

The decision by President John Mahama to remove Justice Torkornoo as the head of the judiciary in line with Article 146(9) generated heated arguments from the moment the decision was announced by the Presidency.

What generated even more criticisms are the three main reasons why the Gabriel Pwamang Committee recommended that she should be removed from office.

Suits

Prior to her removal, five separate suits were filed challenging the processes initiated by the Presidency following the receipt of the petition and how it was referred to the Council of State.

Mrs. Torkornoo, in her suit, accused President John Mahama of acting arbitrarily in his decision to suspend her as a result of three petitions calling for her removal on grounds of stated ‘misbehaviour’ and ‘incompetence.’

According to Mrs. Torkornoo, the decision to suspend her in the absence of a reasoned prima facie determination constitutes a flagrant violation of the 1992 Constitution and the principle of fairness.

She avers that the process governing the potential removal of the Chief Justice must be conducted with utmost circumspection and fidelity to constitutional safeguards, including rigorous adherence to substantive due process and administrative justice.

The MP, on the other hand, argued that upon a true and proper interpretation of Articles 146(1), (2), (4), (6) and (7), 23, 57(3) and 296 of the Constitution, the President is mandated to notify the Chief Justice as well as obtain a response from her before referring the petition to the Council of State or commencing the consultation process.

He contends that a failure by the President to furnish the Chief Justice with copies of the petition seeking her removal, and she responding to the allegations made against her before the initiation of the consultation process with the Council of State violates Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution.

Memorandum of Issues

When the cases were called yesterday, the court noted that aside Vincent Ekow Assafuah, none of the plaintiffs as well as the Attorney General have filed either a joint or separate memorandum of issues.

Even in the case of Mr. Assafuah who had filed his memorandum of issues as far back as June 2025, the Attorney General is yet to file its memorandum of issues for the court to proceed to hear the matter.

The court has, therefore, ordered the Attorney General to file separate memorandum of issues in two weeks after which the case will take its normal course.

In respect of the other cases, the court ordered the plaintiffs and the defendants to file a joint memorandum of issues to be determined, if unsuccessful, the parties may file separately within two weeks from yesterday.

All the cases were adjourned indefinitely pending the filing of the memorandums of issues, either jointly or separately.

BY Gibril Abdul Razak

Read Full Story