Former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo filed an application challenging her removal by President John Mahama from both the office of Chief Justice and as a Justice of the Supreme Court.
At the heart of her application is the contention that the President used a single process to remove her from two distinct judicial offices, an action she argues violates the constitution.
Mrs Torkornoo’s challenge specifically targets the legal foundation of the removal process, asserting that the President cannot constitutionally use the procedure established for removing a Chief Justice under Article 146(6) to simultaneously remove her from her position as a Justice of the Supreme Court. She maintains these are separate offices requiring distinct removal procedures under the Constitution.
The application, filed under Articles 23 and 141 of the 1992 Constitution and Order 55 of C.I. 47, seeks to nullify the Warrant of Removal issued by the President on September 1, 2025, which ousted Torkornoo from both the office of Chief Justice and as a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Mrs Torkornoo’s removal followed a series of petitions submitted to the President earlier this year by Daniel Ofori, the Shinning Stars of Ghana, and Ayamga Yakubu Akolgo Esq., alleging “stated misbehaviour” and “incompetence.”
The petitions accused her of misconduct, including misuse of public funds, unlawful interference in judicial proceedings, abuse of power in administrative transfers, and unethical conduct.
After a prima facie determination by the President in consultation with the Council of State, a five-member committee was established under Article 146(6) of the Constitution to investigate the allegations. Chaired by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, the committee concluded that Torkornoo should be removed from office.
Mrs Torkornoo’s legal team emphasizes that the petitions submitted by Daniel Ofori, the Shinning Stars of Ghana, and Ayamga Yakubu Akolgo Esq. specifically targeted her conduct as Chief Justice, not her performance as a Supreme Court justice. They argue the committee’s mandate was therefore limited to investigating her suitability as Chief Justice alone.
The application further contends that the President’s extension of the committee’s recommendation to remove her from both offices represents an unconstitutional overreach that violates the separation of powers and undermines judicial independence.
The former CJ also asserted that removing a Justice of the Supreme Court requires a separate committee properly constituted under Article 146(4) of the Constitution.
