Asaase news sources report that as of Thursday, 27 March, the Chief Justice had not received copies of any of the three petitions filed against her.
The Presidency issued a public statement on Tuesday, 25 March 2025, stating that it had forwarded three separate petitions to the Council of State for necessary action, which President John Dramani Mahama had received for the removal of Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkonoo.
Normally, copies would have been sent to the person the petition is against as it is being forwarded, per the Constitution, for necessary action. This omission by the Presidency is seen as most curious and has been the topic of discussion within judicial circles over the past two days.
The Tuesday release, signed by Felix Kwakye Ofosu, MP, Spokesperson to the President and Minister for Government Communications, announced that “President Mahama has received three petitions from various persons seeking the removal of the Chief Justice.
“The President has forwarded the three petitions to the Council of State to commence the consultation process mandated by Article 146 of the 1992 constitution,” the statement by Mr Kwakye Ofosu read.
Asaase news sources within the judiciary point out that there is disquiet among justices of the superior courts of judicature and the other judicial service workers because they expected that the Chief Justice would have been served with copies of the petitions filed against her for her response before the President initiates the removal process in order to fulfill the standard requirements of the principle of fair hearing.
Additionally, members of the judiciary are of the opinion that there seems to be a desire within the rank and file of the Mahama administration to run to the media when it comes to matters involving the judiciary rather than playing by the rules set out in the statute books of the country on rules and procedure in dealing with legal and administrative matters.
The provisions in the 1992 Constitution regarding the removal of the Chief Justice are clearly stated in Article 146.
The Supreme Court, in the 2006 Adjei Twum case, further developed the constitutional provision. This means that there is enough information available to the President on the subject matter, and there should be no mistakes in executing such an important constitutional duty,” a member of the judiciary told Asaase News
The process for the removal of a serving Chief Justice is provided for in Article 146, Clause 6 to 11 of the 1992 of the Republic. Its states; Where the petition is for the removal of the Chief Justice, the President shall, acting in consultation with the Council of State, appoint a committee consisting of two Justices of the Supreme Court, one of whom shall be appointed chairman by the President, and three other persons who are not members of the Council of State, nor members of Parliament, nor lawyers.
(7) The committee appointed under clause (6) of this article shall inquire into the petition and recommend to the President whether the Chief Justice ought to be removed from office.
(8) All proceedings under this article shall be held in camera, and the Justice or Chairman against whom the petition is made is entitled to be heard in his defence by himself or by a lawyer or other expert of his choice.
(9) The President shall, in each case, act in accordance with the recommendations of the committee.
(10) Where a petition has been referred to a committee under this article, the President may
(a) in the case of the Chief Justice, acting in accordance with the advice of the Council of State, by warrant signed by him, suspend the Chief Justice;
(b) in the case of any other Justice of a Superior Court or of a Chairman of a Regional Tribunal, acting in accordance with the advice of the Judicial Council, suspend that Justice or that Chairman of a Regional Tribunal.
(11) The President may, at any time, revoke a suspension under this article.
Source: asaaseradio.com
