News
Supreme Court to Hear Crucial Case on Chief Justice’s Removal Process On April 2nd

Published
4 weeks agoon
By
M N RidwanThe Supreme Court of Ghana is set to hear an injunction application filed by Vincent Assafuah, a Member of Parliament (MP) for Old Tafo, on April 2, 2025.
The application challenges the process being used by the President to potentially remove Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo from office.
The legal battle began after the President received three petitions seeking Torkornoo’s removal.
In response, the Chief Justice wrote a letter to the President on March 27, requesting copies of these petitions.
She wants to be allowed to respond to the allegations before further actions are taken. Her request came after Assafuah filed a suit with the Supreme Court, arguing that the procedure for handling the petitions does not align with the Constitution.
Assafuah, who is represented by former Attorney-General Godfred Dame, claims that the President must first notify the Chief Justice of the petitions and give her a chance to provide comments before consulting the Council of State.
According to him, failing to notify the Chief Justice first violates her constitutional rights and undermines the judiciary’s independence.
The Minister for Government Communications, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, confirmed that the petitions had already been forwarded to the Council of State for review, in line with Article 146 of Ghana’s Constitution. However, the grounds for the petitions remain undisclosed.
The Council of State is tasked with advising the President on the next steps, which could lead to a potential inquiry into the Chief Justice’s conduct.
In her letter, Chief Justice Torkornoo respectfully asked for seven days to respond to the allegations, ensuring a fair and transparent process.
Assafuah’s legal suit seeks declarations from the court, demanding that the Chief Justice be notified and consulted before any further steps are taken.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for Ghana’s judicial processes and the protection of judicial independence.