Ghana’s Chief Justice removal unleashes political power struggle, judicial turmoil

The dismissal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo by Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama has shattered the fragile peace at the heart of the nation’s democratic order. The event is more than a legal dispute; it’s a dramatic sign of a deepening crisis that has now exploded into public view, exposing a constitutional fault line. This is not just a story of a public official’s removal but a high-stakes struggle for power, forcing Ghanaians to confront a fundamental question: who truly holds the ultimate authority—the law or the executive?

The Trigger: A Glimpse into the Judiciary’s Private World

This crisis did not emerge from a grand public trial but from a citizen’s petition that brought accusations of “stated misbehaviour.” The allegations were a stark and unexpected peek into the judiciary’s internal affairs: the alleged misuse of public funds for private family travel and claims of unconstitutional interference in judicial appointments.

The petition’s specificity transformed a potential administrative matter into a constitutional firestorm. Under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, President Mahama was required to form a committee to investigate, and upon its recommendation, he was legally bound to act, resulting in her swift dismissal.

It’s worth noting that Justice Torkornoo did not immediately issue a public statement directly reacting to her removal. However, her position remains consistent with her previous stance, having dismissed the allegations as “unfounded and politically motivated” during the investigation.

It’s also important to point out that Justice Torkornoo, Ghana’s third female chief justice, was appointed by the previous administration of former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo. The petition that led to her dismissal was the first of three such petitions filed against her, and a previous attempt to remove her under the Akufo-Addo administration was dismissed due to a lack of evidence. This political history provides crucial context for the current tensions.

The Article 146 Committee of Inquiry formally presented its report to the President after reviewing over 10,000 pages of documentary evidence and extensive testimonies. The committee concluded that grounds of stated misbehaviour had been established against the Chief Justice, leading directly to the President’s action.

The petition, filed by a citizen named Daniel Ofori, a prominent Ghanaian business magnate and investor, accused Torkornoo of misusing public funds for personal travel, including paying for her spouse and daughter’s allowances during private trips. This information adds a layer of specific detail that your audience would find compelling.

The core of the legal dispute, however, lies in a fundamental disagreement over whether the committee’s findings truly warranted such a severe punishment. Torkornoo’s lead counsel, Nii Ayikoi Otoo, insists the committee disregarded the judiciary’s own travel policies, which he claims would have exonerated her.

This is the crux of the matter: a public clash over the private workings and policies of the very institution entrusted to uphold the law. In her own defense, Torkornoo had also filed a case with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court of Justice in Nigeria, challenging the legality of the proceedings.

Colliding Ideals: The Law as a Political Weapon

The public conversation has been defined by a clash of powerful figures, each with a different view on what is at stake.

Former Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo, in a sharp rebuke, described the process as a “rigmarole” that denied her successor due process. Her critique suggests that the allegations against Torkornoo did not meet the high constitutional threshold for removal, hinting that a valid legal process had been weaponised for a political outcome.

A Breach of Confidence

Adding a new layer to the controversy, former Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo has described the public disclosure of her testimony before the Committee as an act of “bad faith.” In a recent interview with TV3 on Wednesday, September 3, she stated she was “outraged” after discovering that her appearance before the confidential, in-camera hearing was leaked on social media. “It was supposed to be in-camera,” she said, questioning how information from a private process could be released to the public. She added that the disclosure undermined the very principles of an in-camera hearing, stating, “I think that is wrong and it was in bad faith and it was in bad form.”

In a powerful counterpoint, legal scholar Kwaku Ansa-Asare argued that this was not a perversion of justice, but a testament to a functioning system. He stated that Ghanaians “should be happy that the constitution is working” and that Torkornoo’s “confrontational attitude” during the inquiry made her removal almost inevitable.

However, another University of Ghana law lecturer, Prof Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua, offered a more nuanced view, acknowledging the legal and political dimensions. “From the constitutional angle, due process was followed,” he stated on JoyNews’ Pulse, adding that “it will be difficult to point out legal lapses that might have influenced President John Mahama’s September 1 move.”

Prof. Appiagyei-Atua also defended Justice Torkornoo’s approach during the inquiry, describing her confrontational posture as a legitimate fight for her rights. “She had to fight for her rights,” he stressed. This exposes a deep rift: one side sees a dangerous precedent of executive overreach, while the other sees a vital act of accountability.

This legal disagreement has become a political proxy war. The ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) and its allies framed the dismissal as a necessary step to uphold the rule of law. The presidency, in its official statement, clarified that “Under Article 146(9), the President is required to act in accordance with the committee’s recommendation.” This highlights the government’s position that the removal was not an act of political will, but a legal obligation.

The main opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP), however, condemned it as a politically motivated attack on judicial independence. “We might, because of the constitution, defend the Republic, not with arms but with truth and lawful resistance,” said Alexander Kwamina Afenyo-Markin, the Minority Leader in Parliament. “We must use every constitutional tool at our disposal to oppose the descent into despotism.” This quote highlights the partisan nature of the dispute and has laid bare the fragility of institutional trust.

For many ordinary Ghanaians, the issue transcends legal and political rhetoric. “It makes you wonder if our institutions are truly independent or just serving those in power,” said Kwesi Mensah, a market trader in Accra. “We need to trust the court to stand up for us.” This sentiment highlights a growing public fear that the checks and balances of their democracy are eroding.

The Long Shadow: A Test for Parliament and the Judiciary

The ripples of this event will be felt for years to come across Ghana’s political landscape.

For the judiciary, the implications are profound. This event could create a “chilling effect” on the bench, with justices now feeling pressure to align their rulings with the executive to avoid a similar fate. As former deputy attorney general Alfred Tuah-Yeboah warned, “If the threshold is what we read in the petition, then I fear for the future of the judiciary.” Public confidence, already a delicate resource, is on the line.

The government’s next move is critical. The appointment of a new Chief Justice will be a defining moment for President Mahama. The choice will be a powerful signal, either to reassure the nation that the judiciary remains independent or to reinforce the perception of its political subjugation. The decision is still pending. The Constitution automatically made Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie the acting Chief Justice, and he has recently gone on leave, leaving Justice Gabriel Pwamang to step in. The continued state of flux and the eventual choice will be a powerful indicator of President Mahama’s intentions.

It is also worth noting that this judicial shakeup comes amid a broader restructuring of state institutions under President Mahama, which has included the recent dismissal of the Chief of Defense Staff for the Ghana Armed Forces and other senior military officers. This suggests a more comprehensive effort to assert executive authority and control across key sectors of government.

Meanwhile, the spotlight is now on Parliament. The controversy has highlighted the dangerous ambiguity in Article 146. The lack of a clear, codified definition for “stated misbehaviour” has granted the executive and the judiciary broad interpretive powers that have now clashed spectacularly. This crisis could, and should, trigger a parliamentary push for constitutional reforms to provide clearer safeguards and prevent future disputes of this magnitude. This event is a powerful reminder that Ghana’s democracy is not a finished project but an ongoing experiment, one whose health is being tested in the crucible of its highest institutions.

The Stakes of a Nation

In the end, the Gertrude Torkornoo case transcends the fate of one individual. It is about the fundamental principles of power, accountability, and the rule of law. The outcome of this constitutional test will determine whether Ghana’s democratic institutions can withstand the pressures of political and legal disputes. “This is not a partisan issue, but a crisis of institutional faith,” concluded a senior analyst from the Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana). “The path forward for Ghana hinges on whether its leaders can prioritize the integrity of its institutions over political convenience, and whether the public can believe in them once more.” As a nation, Ghana must choose a path forward—one that either strengthens the checks and balances that are essential for a healthy democracy or one that allows them to be eroded for political gain.

Read More