Ghana’s Supreme Court convened on May 6, 2025, to examine the constitutionality of President John Mahama’s suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, a case poised to shape judicial independence and executive accountability.
The hearing stems from petitions alleging misconduct against the Chief Justice, prompting the President to act under Article 146(6) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, which outlines procedures for removing superior court judges.
President Mahama suspended Torkornoo on April 22 after consulting the Council of State and forming a five-member investigative committee. The committee includes two Supreme Court justices and three non-legal members. Central to the dispute is whether procedural fairness was observed, particularly whether Torkornoo was afforded a right to respond to allegations before the suspension.
Article 146 mandates the President to consult the Council of State upon receiving a removal petition and establish a prima facie case before initiating an inquiry. However, the Constitution does not explicitly require the accused judge to be heard at this preliminary stage. Legal experts cite the 2006 Supreme Court ruling in Agyei-Twum v. Attorney-General, which affirmed that natural justice demands a right to reply even during initial proceedings. Reports suggest the Council of State sought Torkornoo’s comments before advising the President, but critics argue this step taken by an advisory body does not absolve the President of ensuring due process.
The court must determine whether the President’s failure to directly solicit the Chief Justice’s response breaches constitutional fairness. A ruling upholding the suspension risks setting a precedent for unilateral executive action against judges, while overturning it could reinforce judicial autonomy. The case underscores a constitutional gap in safeguarding judges’ procedural rights during removal processes.
Ghana’s judiciary has historically navigated tensions between political influence and institutional independence. This hearing arrives amid regional concerns over democratic backsliding in West Africa, where executive overreach has weakened checks on power in nations like Mali and Burkina Faso. The outcome may clarify how Ghana’s legal framework balances accountability with protections for judicial officers.
The Supreme Court’s decision will resonate beyond Ghana, offering insights into the robustness of constitutional democracies in addressing governance ambiguities. As African nations grapple with similar challenges, the case highlights the delicate interplay between legal text, judicial precedent, and the principles of natural justice.
