A Slippery Slope for Ghana’s Constitution: The Removal of Chief Justice Torkornoo

The removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo marks a defining moment in Ghana’s constitutional history. It is, in legal terms, the beginning of a slippery slope, if it can happen once, it can happen again, and the precedent will shape how future Chief Justices are treated in office.

At the heart of Ghana’s constitutional framework is the doctrine of separation of powers. Under the 1992 Constitution, the President, the Speaker of Parliament, and the Chief Justice are co-equal in status as heads of the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary respectively. Each is designed to be independent of the other, with checks and balances preserving the delicate equilibrium of our democracy.

The Constitution does provide a mechanism for the removal of superior court judges under Article 146, but it was always assumed to be reserved for the most extraordinary of circumstances. Today’s development demonstrates that, notwithstanding the “high threshold” envisaged by the framers, the office of Chief Justice is not immune to political winds.

This is not the first time we have seen such a shift. The removal of the Electoral Commission Chair in 2018 set a striking precedent, and observers, including senior members of the NDC, have openly suggested that the current EC leadership may also be replaced within a year. Taken together, these actions risk normalising the removal of constitutional officers who are meant to stand above partisan politics.

In Chief Justice Torkornoo’s case, some point to her past involvement in politically sensitive matters, most notably, her position in cases concerning the Speaker of Parliament’s authority to declare a parliamentary seat vacant. Whether one agreed with her legal reasoning or not, her willingness to enter the core of political contestation exposed her to political consequences. In hindsight, a more restrained approach might have shielded her from such vulnerability.

Yet the wider concern is systemic: if the Chief Justice can be removed, even under constitutional procedure, it lowers the protective barrier around the judiciary as an institution. It places future judicial heads in a position where their tenure may be influenced not solely by fidelity to the law but by political calculations.

For Ghana’s democracy, this is a watershed. The Constitution was designed to keep the Judiciary strong and independent, not interchangeable with political officers. The removal of a sitting Chief Justice, though conducted under the law, carries the risk of chilling judicial independence.

The deeper question is not whether Justice Torkornoo’s rulings were right or wrong, but whether today’s removal strengthens or weakens the rule of law. The real test will be whether future Chief Justices can exercise independence without fear of political reprisal. If not, Ghana may have entered uncertain constitutional territory where the separation of powers is more fragile than ever.

Read More