Citizen petitions President to remove Chief Justice

A citizen has petitioned President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo to remove the Chief Justice (CJ), Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, from office. 

In a petition dated December 17, 2024, Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare, who is a Fellow of the Centre for Democratic Development Ghana (CDD-Ghana), grounded his petition on stated misbehaviour and incompetence in relation to the CJ’s administrative functions as the head of the judiciary rather than her decisions made as a Justice of the apex bench.

“I, therefore, petition the President to initiate proceedings to remove the CJ from office to uphold the Constitution, maintain the integrity of the Judiciary and restore public confidence in our judicial system,” the petitioner said. 

Process

Per Article 146 (1) of the 1992 Constitution, a Justice of the Superior Court or a Chairman of a Regional Tribunal shall not be removed from office except for stated misbehaviour or incompetence or on grounds of inability to perform the functions of his or her office arising from infirmity of body or mind.

Article 146(6), which deals with a petition for the removal of the Chief Justice from office, states that when the petition is for the removal of the Chief Justice, the President shall, acting in consultation with the Council of State, appoint a committee consisting of two Justices of the Supreme Court, one of whom shall be appointed chairman by the President, and three other persons who are not members of the Council of State, nor Members of Parliament, nor lawyers to inquire into the petition and recommend to the President whether the Chief Justice ought to be removed from office.

The final decision, however, does not rest with the President alone as Parliament must review the committee's findings and approve the removal for it to take effect.

Request

In the petition, Prof. Asare referred to the CJ’s letter requesting that five members of the Court of Appeal be appointed to the Supreme Court.

They are Justices Edward Amoako Asante, Angelina Mensah Homiah, Eric Kyei Baffuor, Cyra Pamela C.A. Koranteng and Afia Serwah Asare Botwe.

The petitioner alleged that the Chief Justice’s request for the appointment of the aforementioned judges to the Supreme Court was done in brazen violation of the constitutional rules for the appointment of Justices of the Supreme Court, amounted to an abuse of her office, and was done without fair and/or reasonable criteria.

Specifically, the petitioner is of the opinion that the Chief Justice’s letter requesting the appointment of the judges was in oblivion to the constitutional provision of Article 144(2) of the 1992 Constitution which provides for the appointment of Justices of the Supreme Court.

He added that the Chief Justice’s letter was written on her letterhead and not the Judicial Council’s letterhead, adding that “The Chief Justice's direct request to Your Excellency completely undermines the role of the Judicial Council in respect of which she is head, and defeats the consultative and the collaborative requirements of Article 144(2) of the Constitution”.

He said it was because “it essentially bypasses the Judicial Council's advice and the constitutionally mandated process, thereby compromising the constitutional framework designed to prevent undue influence and maintain judicial impartiality”.

Again, the petitioner said the Chief Justice had no power to directly recommend to the President to appoint specific Justices of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.

“The appointment of Justices of the Supreme Court is directly regulated by the provisions of Article 144(2) of the Constitution. The constitutional provision requires that Your Excellency exercises the power acting on the advice of the Judicial Council of which the Chief Justice is a member and in consultation with the Council of State,” the petitioner stated.

He added that the Chief Justice's decision to act outside the constitutional provision not only constituted a violation of the Constitution but undermined the existence and functions of the Judicial Council.

Transfers/Panels

Prof. Asare also made reference to what he described as the arbitrary reconstitution of panels and transfer of judges or justices.

To firm up this allegation, he cited a number of instances, including the case of the Republic versus Stephen Kwabena Opuni, and two others in which Justice Anokye Gyimah was replaced by Justice Aboagye Tandoh from Winneba.

That was after Justice Gyimah ruled that he would start the trial from scratch.

According to the petitioner, “several commentators linked the sudden transfer of Justice Gyimah to his disagreement with the Attorney-General on commencing the trial de novo. They publicly questioned whether Justice Gyimah was transferred because he could not be trusted to conduct the trial in a manner pleasing to the Attorney-General”.

He added that the Chief Justice’s failure to provide any reason for the transfer fuelled the public perception that the transfer was actuated by malice.

He also made reference to the Chief Justice’s decision to transfer the case against Elisha Mahama and two others from the High Court in Wa to Kumasi.

“This directive to transfer the matter to be heard in Kumasi justifiably outraged many indigenes of Upper West because of the venue of the crime and the residence of the parties.

“The Chief Justice's decision was questioned on grounds of reasonableness, given the fact that the hearing of the matter in Wa was proper, more convenient and understandable, having regard to the High Court Wa’s proximity to the place where the crime was committed, the residence of many of the witnesses and also the prosecution.

“Although the Chief Justice subsequently rescinded her decision, her exercise of administrative power to transfer the case to Kumasi was in this instance exposed as arbitrary,” Prof. Asare stated in the petition.  

In addition to these, he said a 10-practice direction issued to regulate some aspects of practice and procedure of certain courts in the country were done in the usurpation of the functions constitutionally reserved to the Rules of the Court Committee.

“Chief Justice wilfully caused financial loss to the State as the said directions have no force of law,” he added.

Again, the petitioner said the Chief Justice breached the provisions of Article 159 when she launched the administrative guidelines for some officials of the Judicial Service.

He concluded by saying that the Chief Justice’s actions undermined judicial independence and impartiality, represented an abuse of power and created a conflict of interest.

“Such actions meet the threshold of ‘stated misbehaviour’ and ‘incompetence’ as outlined in Article 146(1) and, therefore, constitute grounds for removal,” Prof. Asare insisted.