In a move that has sparked widespread debate, President John Dramani Mahama of Ghana has removed Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo from office. This decision comes on the heels of petitions alleging her involvement in misusing public funds. The removal, announced on September 1, follows the recommendations of a constitutionally mandated committee which found her guilty of “misbehavior” as stipulated under article 146(1) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. The article outlines “misbehavior” as one of the grounds for the removal of superior court justices, alongside incompetence and infirmity JURIST.
According to the committee’s findings, Torkornoo authorized unlawful expenditures, including travel expenses for her family through the judicial service. The procedure gained momentum when President Mahama initiated the removal proceedings in March 2025, and following a suspension in April, set up a Committee of Inquiry to investigate the allegations. This move stirred controversy over its constitutionality, leading to a decisive Supreme Court judgment in favor of the suspension in the case of Vincent Ekow Assafuah vs. The Attorney General, where a 3-2 majority upheld her suspension.
Her Ladyship Torkornoo challenged these proceedings, casting doubt on the fairness and clarity of the process. She even took her case to the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice, arguing a violation of her rights. Her removal has led to polarized reactions, with former Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo criticizing the process as unnecessary, suggesting it undermines the independence of the judiciary. Akuffo contended that the constitutional terms like “misbehavior” lack sufficient clarity, leaving them open for subjective interpretation.
On the other side, Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem Sai defended the removal process as constitutional, highlighting the public’s role in determining standards for officials. In a previous interview, presidential spokesperson Felix Kwakye Ofosu had emphasized the importance of accountability for all, regardless of status, as a cornerstone of the rule of law.
This case underscores the ongoing debate in Ghana about the balance between judicial independence and accountability. It raises critical questions about legal clarity, particularly the need for laws to be predictable and standards of guilt to be clearly defined, as was pointed out in the case of Tsatsu Tsikata vs. The Republic. Moreover, it highlights the potential for conflicts of interest, bringing into question the objectivity of constitutional grounds used for such high-level removals.
The removal of Chief Justice Torkornoo signals a pivotal moment for Ghana’s judiciary, potentially prompting calls for broader reforms to better delineate the balance of power and responsibilities within its governmental institutions while ensuring transparency and accountability.