Read full responses of suspended CJ to petitions for her removal

Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo has responded to two petitions for her removal. She called the claims baseless and lacking constitutional merit.

The first petition was from a group named Shining Stars of Ghana. They accused her of breaching Article 144 by recommending five judges for the Supreme Court. They claimed this showed incompetence and a failure to uphold judicial standards.

Chief Justice Torkornoo stated that this issue was already addressed. The President, with the Council of State, dismissed it. She emphasized that no constitutional provision was breached.

She referenced a 2016 Supreme Court decision in the Ghana Bar Association case. This ruling clarified that the President is not bound by advisory opinions from councils. Thus, she reinforced that proper processes were followed.

Torkornoo added, “To try me again on the same facts is contrary to res judicata.” She believes the matter should remain concluded.

The second petition came from legal practitioner Ayamga Yakubu Akolgo. He alleged he was treated poorly during a courtroom incident in November 2023. He claimed this led to his removal and misrepresentation in media reports.

In response, Chief Justice Torkornoo acknowledged his unfortunate experience but maintained her stance. She said, “If the Petitioner had a bad experience in court, I apologize.” However, she noted there was no misconduct or incompetence justifying removal under Article 146.

She also stressed that decisions are made collectively by all justices present. “The presiding judge is not the court,” she explained.

Regarding court records, she clarified judges do not manage them or respond to registry searches. “That responsibility lies with court staff,” she stated.

Both responses were directed to President John Mahama. The Chief Justice emphasized that these petitions are repetitive or constitutionally unfounded.

She urged that judicial accountability matters be handled through proper legal procedures instead of personal grievances or misinterpretations of courtroom conduct.