Ghana’s Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, finds herself at the center of a developing legal and constitutional quandary, having been targeted by petitions seeking her removal from office. These petitions, submitted to President John Dramani Mahama, have triggered a formal request from the Chief Justice for access to their contents, citing concerns about due process and transparency. Justice Torkornoo’s appeal underscores the importance of established legal procedures, particularly the right of an accused individual to be informed of the charges against them and to offer a defense before any action is taken. This unfolding situation has captured the attention of legal experts and the public alike, raising questions about the handling of such sensitive matters within Ghana’s constitutional framework.
The crux of the matter lies in the Chief Justice’s assertion that she has been denied the fundamental right to review the allegations leveled against her. In a letter addressed to both President Mahama and the Council of State, she expressed her concern over the lack of communication regarding the petitions’ substance. Despite a presidential statement confirming the receipt and forwarding of three petitions to the Council of State – a process stipulated under Article 146(6) of the 1992 Constitution – Justice Torkornoo remained uninformed about the specific details of the accusations. This lack of transparency, she argues, contravenes established legal norms and creates an environment of procedural unfairness.
Justice Torkornoo’s request for access to the petitions is not merely a procedural formality but a plea for adherence to established legal principles. She emphasizes that in previous cases involving the removal of judges, the accused party was routinely granted the opportunity to respond to the allegations before any determination was made about the validity of the claims. This established practice, she argues, serves as a crucial safeguard against unfounded accusations and ensures that the process is conducted with fairness and impartiality. Applying this principle to her own situation, the Chief Justice insists that she should be afforded the same opportunity to respond to the petitions before the President and the Council of State proceed with any further action.
To bolster her argument, Justice Torkornoo draws upon legal precedent, citing the Supreme Court case of Agyei-Twum v Attorney-General and Akwettey [2005-2006] SCGLR 732. This case, she argues, establishes the principle that both the evidence presented in the petitions and the response of the accused should inform the consultations between the President and the Council of State. This ensures a comprehensive understanding of the situation before a decision is made regarding the formation of an investigative committee. By invoking this precedent, the Chief Justice seeks to ensure that her case is handled with the same level of legal rigor and fairness as previous cases involving judicial officers.
The Chief Justice’s request for a seven-day period to respond to the petitions further underscores her commitment to due process. This timeframe, she believes, would allow her sufficient time to thoroughly review the allegations and formulate a comprehensive response. This request is not a delaying tactic, but rather a necessary step to ensure that she can effectively address the accusations and present her side of the story. By granting her this reasonable timeframe, the President and the Council of State would demonstrate their commitment to a fair and transparent process.
This unfolding situation in Ghana’s judiciary raises critical questions about the balance between the need to address potential misconduct within the judicial system and the equally important imperative to uphold the principles of due process and fairness. The Chief Justice’s appeal for transparency and the opportunity to respond to the allegations against her highlights the importance of adhering to established legal procedures, particularly when dealing with matters that could have significant implications for the integrity of the judiciary. The response of the President and the Council of State to this request will be closely scrutinized, as it will set a precedent for future cases and signal the government’s commitment to upholding the rule of law. The outcome of this situation will undoubtedly have a lasting impact on the perception of judicial independence and accountability in Ghana.
