Ghana's Chief Justice fights moves to oust her

President John Dramani Mahama's attempt to remove Ghana's Chief Justice has led to legal challenges and an outcry by opposition political parties and concerned citizens, notes Legalbrief. Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo has formally requested access to the petitions submitted to Mahama that seek her removal from office. According to Modern Ghana, in a letter addressed to both the President and the Council of State, she expressed concern over the lack of due process, stating that she has not been given the opportunity to review the allegations against her or respond to them. She emphasised that constitutional provisions and legal precedents require an accused person to be informed of the charges before any action is taken. Torkornoo referenced a 25 March 2025 statement from the Presidency, which circulated on social media, confirming that three petitions had been received and forwarded to the Council of State under Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution. However, as of 27 March she had yet to receive copies of the documents. She pointed out that in past cases involving the removal of judges, standard practice has been to allow the accused to respond before determining whether a prima facie case exists.

Torkornoo insisted that the same principle should apply to the current proceedings. She has urged the President and the Council of State to provide her with copies of the petitions and allow her at least seven days to respond before their deliberations are concluded. Her request raises important constitutional and legal questions about fairness and transparency in the process. Legal experts and observers are closely watching how the Presidency and the Council of State will handle her appeal. In January, former President Akufo-Addo dismissed a petition seeking the removal of the Chief Justice, reports My Joy Online. The former President, after consultations with the Council of State, concluded that the petition, filed by Profesor Stephen Kwaku Asare, lacked merit and did not disclose a prima facie case warranting further investigation. The petition accused Torkornoo of misconduct and incompetence, citing alleged panel reconstitution, issuance of practice directions, and constitutional breaches.

The Supreme Court has set 2 April 2025, to hear an injunction application filed by New Patriotic Party Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, Vincent Assafuah, against the procedure being used by the President to potentially remove the Chief Justice from office. The legal action by Assafuah questions the procedure being used to handle the petitions, reports My Joy Online. According to the plaintiff, who is being represented by Godfred Dame, the former Attorney-General, a Chief Justice ought to be alerted to the petitions to give a response before the President can consult the Council of State on the petitions. The Minister for Government Communications, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, confirmed that the three petitions have been forwarded to the Council of State in line with Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution. While the specific grounds for the petitions remain undisclosed, the process marks the first step in a constitutional procedure that could lead to significant changes in Ghana’s judiciary. The Council of State is expected to review the petitions and provide guidance to the President on the appropriate course of action. Assafuah, acting as a concerned citizen under Article 2(1)(b) of the 1992 Constitution, seeks several declarations from the Supreme Court, whose original jurisdiction he is invoking, regarding the interpretation of constitutional provisions governing the removal of a Chief Justice.

The suit argues that the President must notify the Chief Justice and obtain the comments of the Chief Justice before initiating consultation with the Council of State on the matter. According to My Joy Online, the plaintiff requests the court to declare that:

* The President must notify the Chief Justice and obtain their comments before referring a removal petition to the Council of State, as per Articles 146(1), (2), (4), (6), and (7), 23, 57(3), and 296 of the Constitution.

* Failure to notify the Chief Justice before initiating the consultation process with the Council of State is a violation of Article 146(6) and undermines the constitutional protection of the Chief Justice’s security of tenure.

* Any omission in this process amounts to unjustified interference with the independence of the judiciary, contravening Articles 127(1) and (2) of the Constitution.

* The President’s failure to obtain the Chief Justice’s comments before triggering the removal process violates the right to a fair hearing, rendering the consultation process null and void.

Meanwhile, the People’s National Party has bemoaned what it calls the betrayal of women’s empowerment by the President, reports 3 News. In a statement, the PNP said the removal bid was disheartening. The party said the move was ‘unprecedented’, considering the fact that ‘previous administrations have respected judicial independence and worked with Chief Justices regardless of political differences’. The statement signed by the chairperson and leader of the party, Janet Asana Nabla, said the move betrayed Mahama’s commitment to the Affirmative Action Law and his pledge of women inclusion in his administration which the party says has been abandoned based on the number of women in his government now. 'This action is yet another betrayal of the very women President Mahama promised to empower. His pledge to implement the Affirmative Action Law and ensure 30% representation of women in his government has been abandoned.'