On April 22, 2025, Ghana’s President John Dramani Mahama suspended the nation’s Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, pending the outcome of a formal investigation into allegations of misconduct—a move that marks the first time in Ghana’s history that a sitting Chief Justice has been suspended through constitutional means.
This decision has sent shockwaves through the country’s legal and political establishment, raising urgent questions about judicial independence, the rule of law, and the balance of power within one of Africa’s most stable democracies.
Historical and Political Context
Ghana’s judiciary, established in 1853 during the colonial era, has long been regarded as a stabilizing force in the country’s political system. Since the advent of the Fourth Republic in 1992, the Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in resolving electoral disputes and safeguarding constitutional order.
Chief justices in Ghana enjoy security of tenure and can only be removed for proven incompetence or misconduct, following a rigorous process outlined in Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.
Historically, tensions between the executive and judiciary have surfaced, especially during politically charged moments. Previous instances of executive interference, both in Ghana and elsewhere in Africa, have often led to public outcry and concerns about the erosion of judicial independence. However, no Ghanaian president has until now suspended a sitting Chief Justice through a formal constitutional process.
The Current Crisis: Developments and Stakeholders
The Suspension and Allegations
President Mahama’s action followed the submission of three undisclosed petitions alleging misconduct against Chief Justice Torkornoo, including claims of tampering with court records and misuse of public funds.
After consulting the Council of State, the President determined that a prima facie case existed and, as permitted by Article 146(10), issued a suspension warrant pending a full inquiry by a five-member investigative committee.
The details of the petitions remain confidential, and the Chief Justice has not made a public statement. Legal experts and former officials have criticized the process, especially the initial failure to provide Torkornoo with copies of the petitions, which some argue violated her right to a fair hearing.
The committee, chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Pwamang and including figures such as former Auditor-General Daniel Domelevo, is tasked with determining whether the Chief Justice should be permanently removed.
Key Stakeholders
President John Dramani Mahama: Initiator of the suspension, acting on constitutional advice and facing both domestic and international scrutiny.
Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo: The suspended judicial head, now awaiting the outcome of the inquiry.
Council of State: An Advisory body whose input was sought by constitutional requirements.
Legal and Political Community: Deeply divided, with some viewing the move as a necessary accountability measure, while others see it as a dangerous precedent.
Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie: The most senior Supreme Court judge, now overseeing the judiciary during the suspension.
Expert Commentary and Analysis
The suspension has drawn widespread criticism from legal scholars, governance experts, and political observers:
Former Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame described the move as “the gravest threat to the independence of the judiciary under our constitutional framework” and an attempt to weaken the judiciary.
Prof. Baffour Agyeman-Duah, former UN Governance Advisor, warned of “significant reputational damage to Ghana’s democratic institutions,” emphasizing the need for restraint and constitutional fidelity during such crises.
UK-based governance expert Michael Danquah urged the Chief Justice to challenge her suspension in court, arguing that such actions should only follow evidence of serious criminal conduct.
Legal analysts have highlighted procedural flaws, particularly the lack of initial opportunity for the Chief Justice to respond to the allegations, which could render the process legally defective if not addressed.
Economic and international observers have warned that the suspension sends a negative signal to investors and could undermine Ghana’s image as a bastion of judicial independence in West Africa.
Implications for Governance, Democracy, and Regional Stability
Governance and Judicial Independence
The suspension tests the resilience of Ghana’s constitutional checks and balances. While the government insists that due process is being followed and that there is “no presumption of guilt,” critics argue that the move risks politicizing the judiciary and eroding its independence. The process’s transparency and fairness will be crucial in determining whether the judiciary emerges strengthened or weakened.
Democracy and Public Trust
Public confidence in Ghana’s judiciary has already been under strain, with recent surveys showing declining trust amid allegations of political bias in high-profile cases.
The current episode could further polarize public opinion, especially if the process is perceived as politically motivated or lacking in due process. The risk of “judicial capture”—where the judiciary is seen as subservient to the executive—looms large.
Regional and International Impact
Ghana has long been viewed as a model of democratic stability in West Africa, a region often beset by coups and political crises.
The suspension of the Chief Justice, if mishandled, could undermine this reputation and embolden similar executive actions in neighboring countries.
International investors and partners are closely monitoring the situation, with concerns about the broader implications for the rule of law and democratic governance in the region.
Possible Outcomes and Evolving Scenarios
Restoration of the Chief Justice: If the committee finds the allegations unsubstantiated, Torkornoo could be reinstated, potentially restoring confidence in the judiciary, though scars from the process may linger.
Removal from Office: A finding of guilt would result in permanent removal, setting a precedent for judicial accountability but also raising questions about the process’s fairness and the potential for future politicization.
Constitutional Crisis: If the process is challenged in court and the executive refuses to comply with judicial orders, Ghana could face a constitutional standoff, with unpredictable consequences for governance and stability.
Legislative and Constitutional Reform: The crisis has renewed calls for legislative reforms to clarify the powers and limits of the executive and judiciary, including proposals to cap the number of Supreme Court judges and regulate the Chief Justice’s administrative authority.
Conclusion
The suspension of Ghana’s Chief Justice is a watershed moment for the country’s democracy, testing the strength of its institutions and the maturity of its constitutional order.
The outcome will shape not only the future of the judiciary but also the trajectory of governance and public trust in one of Africa’s leading democracies.
Whether this episode becomes a cautionary tale or a reaffirmation of the rule of law will depend on the transparency, fairness, and integrity of the ongoing process—and the willingness of all actors to put constitutional principles above political expediency.
Leave a comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
