The Office of the Attorney-General has filed processes seeking to strike out a second judicial review application brought by suspended Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo, who is asking the High Court to dismiss one of the three petitions filed for her removal from office.
The judicial review, filed on June 23, 2025, targets a petition submitted by a group calling itself the Shining Stars of Ghana. The suspended Chief Justice’s legal team argues that the petition is flawed because the group is not a registered entity and the identities of its members remain unknown.
However, the Attorney-General, through Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, contends that these claims are baseless and should not prevent the committee established under Article 146 of the Constitution from continuing its work.
In documents filed at the High Court, the AG maintains that the Chief Justice’s motion should be struck out entirely.
“A body of persons—whether named or not named and, if named, by whichever name—needs not be incorporated or registered to exist at law,” the affidavit filed by State Attorney Reginald Nii Odoi states.
This is the second attempt by Justice Torkornoo to halt the work of the committee through the High Court’s powers of Judicial review.
An earlier judicial review sought to strike out all three petitions against her and to halt the Justice Pawmang Committee’s sittings for alleged violations of the rules of natural justice. That application was, however, dismissed by the High Court on grounds of an abuse of court processes and lack of jurisdiction.
Though an interpretation case related to the matter remains pending before the Supreme Court, an injunction application stemming from that case was also thrown out, allowing for the Article 146 proceedings to continue.
In his affidavit to the new application by Justice Torkonoo, the Attorney-General emphasises that the matters raised in the suspended Chief Justice’s application relate directly to the proceedings of the Article 146 committee, which are constitutionally mandated to be conducted in camera, not in open court.
“The issues raised by the originating motion are not admissible in this Honourable Court,” the AG’s office argued, reinforcing its position that the High Court has no jurisdiction over matters under Article 146.
