Former Supreme Court Justice William Atuguba has waded into the debate over the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, describing the process as one that has been excessively politicised to the detriment of Ghana’s democracy.

While acknowledging that the constitutional procedure for removal is legitimate, he warned that partisan manipulation of the process undermines judicial credibility and erodes national cohesion.

Justice Atuguba explained that the constitutional steps for removing a Chief Justice or other public officials are clearly set out and must be respected once evidence supports such action.

“When the committee concludes its enquiry and if they feel that they have enough evidence to justify a removal, why not? They have to present that report. And especially, the effect of the recommendation for removal is automatic”.
Former Supreme Court Justice William Atuguba

But he quickly pointed out that the core challenge lies not in the constitutionality of the procedure but in the political mindset that often surrounds it. He was emphatic that partisan tit-for-tat has deeply harmed Ghana’s institutions.

“That’s why I say it is the politics that has harmed this country very gravely. Why should somebody have that mindset that because somebody has been removed from office, therefore, when they are also elected to power, they would remove the next Chief Justice, irrespective of the merits of their case?”.
Former Supreme Court Justice William Atuguba

Justice Atuguba recalled earlier precedents, citing the dismissal of former Electoral Commission Chairperson Charlotte Osei and former Commissioner of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), Lauretta Lamptey.

“Don’t forget that Charlotte Osei and the CHRAJ Commissioner, one lady [Madam Lamptey], it was under the same conditions, the same provisions. Stated misbehaviour. And is it not these people who did it? At that time, did they have trouble with what was stated as misbehaviour? Why, suddenly, when their appointee is involved in the same thing, they say Hey?”
Former Supreme Court Justice William Atuguba

Political Motivation

Responding to claims that the removal of Justice Torkornoo was politically motivated and connected to promises by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to “restructure the judiciary,” Justice Atuguba insisted that electoral mandates must be understood in context.

He argued that manifesto commitments, once endorsed by voters, cannot be dismissed as illegitimate.

“Let us be a bit serious here. Look, when the parties are contesting for elections, don’t they have their manifestos as to what they will do when elected into power? So when they are elected and they are implementing the manifesto, what’s wrong with it?
“That is premeditated, and it’s endorsed by the voters, and they are implementing it. You mean somebody should just come to power without, you know, any program for running the country?”.
Former Supreme Court Justice William Atuguba

For Atuguba, the real issue is not when reforms are implemented but whether they respond to systemic weaknesses. He reiterated that he had long argued for judicial restructuring, even before the 2024 general elections, as a necessary step toward restoring public confidence. “The important question is not when. I remember, before the elections, I used to say here that the judiciary needed restructuring,” he stated.

The retired judge, however, was critical of statements that openly tie judicial appointments to partisan considerations. He referenced remarks by President John Mahama, when he was still a candidate, that an NDC government would appoint party-affiliated lawyers to the bench.

Justice Atuguba argued that such rhetoric undermines the principles of impartiality and competence. “When President Mahama, then candidate, said that when he comes, he’s also going to send some NDC lawyers to the bench, that was political, and these things don’t help us,” he remarked.

While acknowledging Mahama’s recognition that public trust in the judiciary was waning, Atuguba stressed that competence and objectivity should have been central to such proposals. “He should have said he would bring those NDC lawyers who are competent and objective-minded, and not just NDC lawyers,” he said.

Troubling Double Standard in Ghanaian Politics

Justice Atuguba lamented what he sees as a troubling double standard in Ghanaian politics. He argued that those outside power are often not permitted to challenge what they perceive as institutional failings, but once they assume office and attempt reforms, their efforts are quickly dismissed as politically motivated.

“So you see something wrong. You are not in power. And you are not allowed to say that this is not correct, it has to be rectified. And when you see it and you come and you are pursuing it, then it is nonsense. I mean, this type of thing, is it commendable?”
Former Supreme Court Justice William Atuguba

Ultimately, he cautioned that if politicians continue to operate with the mindset that the removal of a Chief Justice is simply another opportunity to score partisan points, then the independence and credibility of the judiciary will continue to deteriorate.

“That means they’ll do it irrespective of the performance of the next Chief Justice. That’s the mindset of some of these politicians,” he warned. Justice Atuguba’s reflections cast a sobering light on the intersection of law, politics, and institutional trust in Ghana.

His call was clear: while constitutional provisions must be respected, political actors must rise above short-term partisan interests and embrace reforms that strengthen—not weaken—the foundations of justice and democracy.