The suspended Chief Justice of Ghana, Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, has faced another legal setback in her ongoing attempt to stop the proceedings of a five-member committee probing petitions seeking her removal from office.
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed her application for an interlocutory injunction against the committee set up by President John Mahama to investigate her conduct.
The decision represents yet another blow to the embattled Chief Justice, who has maintained that the process initiated against her is deeply flawed and poses a threat to judicial independence in Ghana.
In addition to rejecting her injunction application, the Supreme Court also unanimously struck out a supplementary affidavit filed by Justice Torkornoo.
The Court held that the affidavit disclosed confidential information that should have remained under wraps in accordance with Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, which outlines the procedures for the removal of a Chief Justice or other superior court judge.
The five-member Supreme Court panel, presided over by Acting Chief Justice Baffoe Bonnie and comprising Justices Tanko Amadu, Kulendi, Kwofie, and Adjei Frimpong, upheld an application by Deputy Attorney General Justice Srem Sai, who argued that the supplementary affidavit breached the confidentiality requirements of the ongoing probe.
The Court agreed with his submission and struck the affidavit out, paving the way for the substantive hearing of the injunction application, which has now commenced.
Justice Torkornoo appeared in person for the court proceedings, accompanied by her husband, Mr. Francis Torkornoo. Her legal representation was led by former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame, who also spoke passionately in her defence following the Court’s ruling.
Justice Torkornoo had applied for an injunction on May 21, 2025, asking the apex court to halt all proceedings by the five-member investigative committee, which includes Justices Gabriel Scott Pwamang and Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, former Auditor-General Daniel Yao Domelevo, retired military officer Major Flora Bazuwaaruah Dalugo, and academic Professor James Sefah Dziasah.
According to court filings, the Chief Justice had also specifically sought an order barring Justices Pwamang and Adibu-Asiedu from participating in the committee’s work due to concerns about bias and conflict of interest.
Her argument centred on the claim that one of the Justices had previously served as a witness in an earlier petition involving her, and therefore could not fairly sit in judgment over matters arising from related issues.
Counsel’s Reaction
Addressing the press after the Supreme Court’s ruling, former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame expressed disappointment, even as he noted that the ruling was not unexpected. “I am not surprised at the decision of the court, but we will move on. The process for the CJ’s removal is flawed, no doubt about that,” he said.
He further asserted that the Supreme Court’s endorsement of what he termed as “violations” against the highest judicial office in the country was a worrying development.
Godfred Dame emphasised that the case is not just about Justice Torkornoo as an individual, but about protecting the sanctity and independence of the judiciary in Ghana.
“As I keep saying, it is not about Justice Torkornoo. The issues are far-reaching, affecting the independence of Ghana’s judicial system. However, the Supreme Court failed to defend it”.
former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame
Godfred Dame declined to provide specific details about the next line of action, but stressed that the legal team would continue to explore every constitutional avenue to ensure justice is served.
“I’m not here to disclose to you my line of action, but clearly, this is a procedure that should not be taken lightly,” he said. He reiterated that the Chief Justice had not been served with any clear charges or informed of the precise basis for the petition.
“She has not had notice of the specific charges of which the case has been made. The basis for such charges and the reasons why she’s supposed to go. I mean, this is a basic right that is available to every citizen of the country”.
former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame
According to Godfred Dame, the committee’s conduct raises significant due process concerns. “What is she going to respond to? What is the basis for saying there’s a case for her to answer?” he asked. “Indeed, this is a very significant point. It is a decision that must alienate right-thinking members of our society,” he urged.
He also criticized the composition of the committee, suggesting that the presence of a Justice who had previously served as a witness in a petition involving the Chief Justice undermines the credibility and impartiality of the process.
The Supreme Court’s dual rulings mark a turning point in the inquiry process and suggest that the committee’s work will continue despite resistance from the suspended Chief Justice’s legal team.
READ ALSO: Energy Minister Directs ECG to Install 200 Transformers to Boost Distribution
