Supreme Court to hear injunction application against processes to remove CJ on April 2nd

The Supreme Court will hear an injunction application on April 2, 2025. This application was filed by Vincent Assafuah, an NPP MP for Old Tafo. He is challenging the President's procedure to remove the Chief Justice after receiving three petitions.

This decision follows a letter from Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo. She requested copies of the three petitions seeking her removal. Her request came soon after Assafuah's suit questioning how the petitions are being handled.

Assafuah is represented by Godfred Dame, a former Attorney-General. He argues that the Chief Justice should be informed of the petitions first. This would allow her to respond before the President consults with the Council of State.

Felix Kwakye Ofosu, Minister for Government Communications, confirmed that the petitions were sent to the Council of State. This action aligns with Article 146 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.

The specific grounds for these petitions have not been disclosed yet. However, this process could lead to significant changes in Ghana’s judiciary.

The Council of State will review the petitions and advise the President on what to do next. In her letter dated March 27, Chief Justice Torkonoo asked for a fair chance to respond to allegations against her.

She requested that the President and Council of State send her the petitions. She asked for at least seven days to provide her response before any further actions are taken.

Assafuah is acting as a concerned citizen under Article 2(1)(b) of the Constitution. He seeks several declarations from the Supreme Court regarding how a Chief Justice can be removed.

His suit argues that notifying and obtaining comments from the Chief Justice is necessary before consulting with the Council of State about removal.

The plaintiff requests several declarations from the court:

1. The President must notify and obtain comments from the Chief Justice before referring a removal petition.

2. Not notifying her violates Article 146(6) and undermines her security of tenure.

3. Any omission interferes with judicial independence, violating Articles 127(1) and (2).

4. Failing to obtain comments violates her right to a fair hearing, making consultations invalid.

5. Any other reliefs deemed appropriate by the Court may also be considered.