The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has ignited a heated debate with its call for President John Dramani Mahama to revoke the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Esaaba Torkornoo. This demand, articulated in a five-point resolution issued at the GBA’s 2025 mid-year conference, contends that the President’s action was unlawful, arguing that only judicial officers possess the constitutional authority to suspend a Chief Justice, and even then, within a clear regulatory framework. The GBA’s stance has been met with both support and sharp criticism, particularly accusations of selective advocacy and a renewed outspokenness coinciding with the NDC’s return to power.
At the center of the controversy is the GBA’s assertion that the President overstepped his constitutional boundaries by suspending the Chief Justice. They argue that this action undermines the separation of powers and sets a dangerous precedent for executive interference in the judiciary. The GBA’s resolution further addressed other pressing national concerns, including the ongoing conflict in Bawku and the unresolved parliamentary election in Ablekuma North, showcasing a broader engagement with significant national issues. The association’s threat of legal action if the President fails to reinstate Chief Justice Torkornoo underscores their commitment to this particular issue.
However, the GBA’s stance has been met with skepticism from some quarters, who question the timing and consistency of their activism. Critics, including private legal practitioner Thaddeus Sory, point to the GBA’s relative silence during the previous NPP administration, even when faced with what they perceive as equally, if not more, concerning issues within the judiciary. Sory specifically challenges the GBA’s silence on alleged unconstitutional actions taken by the now-suspended Chief Justice, including the issuance of administrative guidelines and practice directions that he claims violated legal norms and caused financial losses to the state. This perceived silence, according to critics, casts doubt on the GBA’s commitment to principled advocacy and raises the specter of partisan bias.
Kofi Asare, Executive Director of Africa Education Watch, adds another layer to this complex debate through his satirical commentary on the GBA’s actions. Asare’s observation, highlighting the GBA’s seemingly selective engagement with national issues, encapsulates the broader skepticism surrounding the association’s motives. His pointed remark about the GBA knowing “when to sleep and when to wake” implies a perception of politically motivated activism, suggesting that the association’s outspokenness is strategically deployed depending on the ruling party.
The controversy surrounding the Chief Justice’s suspension exposes deeper tensions within Ghana’s legal and political landscape. The GBA’s intervention, while ostensibly aimed at upholding the rule of law and defending the independence of the judiciary, has inadvertently opened a Pandora’s Box of questions regarding its own impartiality and consistency. The accusations of selective advocacy, fueled by the GBA’s perceived silence on past controversies, undermine their current position and contribute to a broader narrative of politicization within key institutions.
The debate moving forward hinges on several key questions: Will the President yield to the GBA’s demands and reinstate the Chief Justice? Will the GBA follow through on its threat of legal action? And perhaps most importantly, will this controversy prompt a deeper reflection within the GBA on its role as a non-partisan advocate for justice and the rule of law? The answers to these questions will not only determine the fate of Chief Justice Torkornoo but also shape the future of the GBA’s credibility and influence within Ghana’s political and legal system. The ongoing discussion underscores the importance of consistent and principled advocacy, regardless of political affiliations, to ensure the integrity and independence of vital institutions like the judiciary.
