Chief Justice dismisses allegations of financial misconduct detailed in one of the removal petitions

Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo has denied claims of financial misconduct. These claims were made in a petition to President John Mahama.

The petition was filed by Daniel Ofori, a private citizen. He accuses her of misusing over GHS261,000 in public funds during travel in 2023.

Mr. Ofori alleges that she used state funds for trips with her husband and daughter. He also questions GHS 75,580 spent on a trip to Tanzania. Additionally, he claims she did not account for a $14,000 imprest for the same trip.

In her response to the presidency, Chief Justice Torkornoo rejected these allegations. She called them “unfortunate untruths” and said they stem from misunderstandings of Judicial Service policies.

She referred to internal protocols from 2010, updated in 2019. These rules allow the Chief Justice to travel with a spouse or companion on official trips.

She quoted the policy: “The Chief Justice shall undertake unlimited official travels with either his/her Spouse or other person of his/her choice.” This includes funding for both the Chief Justice and their companion.

Torkornoo clarified that there was no violation when she traveled with her spouse and daughter on separate occasions.

Regarding the $14,000 imprest, she explained that only $4,411 was spent during the trip. The remaining $9,588.20 was refunded two days after she returned to work.

“I spent an amount of $4,411 out of the said imprest,” she stated clearly.

About her trip to Arusha, Tanzania, Torkornoo mentioned that illness cut it short. She had to return early for a Ghana Bar Association conference in Cape Coast.

“I fell ill from exhaustion when I arrived in Arusha,” she explained.

She emphasized that she does not control travel finances.

“As Chief Justice, I neither purchase tickets nor determine per diem amounts,” she said.

Torkornoo described the petition as fundamentally flawed due to misunderstandings about Judicial Service procedures.

“It is unfortunate that the Petitioner created this wrong presentation of expenditures,” she concluded.