The Chief Justice Getrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, has been suspended from office by President John Dramani Mahama, effective Tuesday, 22 April 2025.
The President’s actions, which are said to be grounded in Article 146 (10) of the 1992 constitution, were largely inspired by some three petitions that the President received seeking the removal of the Chief Justice from office.
Read the petition and responses by the CJ to the petition by AYAMGA YAKUBU AKOLGO.
Ayamga Akolgo’s Petition
The third petition by the senior police officer, Ayamga Akolgo, among others, states, “This is my respectful petition made in good faith to ensure judicial accountability. The Chief Justice is equal before the law. She is accountable for omissions arising from the exercise of judicial office.
“The prescribed procedure towards judges’ accountability is provided in article 146 of the Constitution, section 16 of the Judicial Service Act, and the Code of Conduct for Judges and Magistrates, Ghana.
“I did nothing criminal to be arrested and detained on her orders. I did not commit contempt of court. She made demeaning comments specifically directed at my person. I did respond, disagreeing with her demeaning comments. Suddenly, she furiously and unilaterally orders my arrest and detention for disagreeing with her demeaning comments.
“She abuses the sacred judicial office by wrongly causing my arrest and detention. The arrest and detention were capricious, unreasonable, unilateral, and without justification, constituting stated misbehavior and incompetence as provided in Article 146 (1) of the Constitution. The arrest and detention infringed on my rights, dignity, and resulted in pain, trauma, and humiliation.
“She failed or neglected to perform her judicial duty of recording the occurrence in the court’s record book. She authorized, supervised, and approved false statements or false entries in the search report.
“The supervision of false statements in the search was intended to deceive, cover up, obstruct, or pervert the course of justice, or constitute criminal fabrication of evidence, contrary to statutes, the Code of Conduct for Judges, and consistent with stated misbehavior and incompetence as provided in Article 146 (1) of the Constitution,” Ayamga Akolgo alleged in his petition.
CJ response to Ayamga
“Your Excellency, while I do not hesitate to apologize on behalf of the Supreme Court and myself if any court user, including the Petitioner, had a bad experience in court while I was presiding over a case, my humble submission is that the Petition does not provide any element of ‘misbehavior or incompetence that can lead to removal of a Chief Justice under the 1992 Constitution.
“The hearing and proceedings complained about are the proceedings of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is always composed of not less than five Justices for the exercise of its judicial functions under Article 128 of the 1992 Constitution, except when its work is executed by a single Justice under Article 134.
In the conduct of the work of the Supreme Court, the presiding Judge, whether the Chief Justice or another senior member of the court, is not the court. And any directions given during the court’s work are the directions of the court, and not the directions of any individual judge.
“As stated by the Petitioner, other members of the court gave various directions and contributions during the proceedings of the day. All those directions and contributions formed part of the work of the court that day.
“Article 127 on Independence of the Judiciary provides: 127 (3) A Justice of a Superior Court, or any person exercising judicial power, shall not be liable to any action or suit for any act or omission by him in the exercise of the judicial power.
Because of the weight of article 127 (3), it is respectfully submitted that neither the Chief Justice nor any of the Justices on the panel of five may be singled out to be sanctioned for court proceedings.
“I also wish to clarify that the manuscript records of the court in the Record Book of the Supreme Court are summaries of presentations and orders of the day relevant to the business of the court, and nothing more.
“This is the reason why the records of each panel are signed by each Judge on the panel, signifying their agreement that it constitutes a true record of the essence of proceedings and orders from the proceedings.
“Further, no Judge manages or administers the electronically captured records of the court. These records are managed by court recorders. Thus, respectfully, the Petitioner’s demands for liability for the records he is seeking on the matters that occurred concerning him are not appropriately targeted,” the Chief Justice noted in her response.
“Your Excellency, the matters presented in this Petition are unable to lead to a prima facie finding of liability for removal of the Chief Justice,” the response of Justice Getrude Torkornoo read in conclusion.
CJ Response to Ayamga Yakubu Petition Ayamga Yakubu Akolgo Petition