By The Chief Justice, Her Ladyship Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkonoo, has officially written to President John Dramani Mahama. She has requested copies of the petitions. These petitions call for her removal from office.
Justice Torkonoo made a request in a letter. It was addressed to both the President and members of the Council of State on Thursday, March 27, 2025. She asked for a seven-day period to review the petitions. This would be after she receives them.
This will allow her to provide an appropriate response before a Committee of Inquiry is established to investigate the petitions.
“I am humbly and respectfully asking His Excellency the President. I request the eminent members of the Council of State to forward the petition against me to me. Allow me at least seven days after receipt of same to provide my response to you. This response can form part of the material for the consultations anticipated under 146 (6). It is before the possible setting up of a Committee of Inquiry under article 146(7),” the letter read.
The Chief Justice responded two days after President Mahama took action. He forwarded three petitions calling for her removal. These were sent to the Council of State for further action.
In her response, she noted that she has not received copies of the petitions. This is despite the President’s action. These petitions are expected to form the basis for her removal from office.
She referenced Article 146(1) of the Constitution. It stipulates that when a petition for the removal of a Supreme Court judge is received, the Chief Justice must inform the accused judge. The Chief Justice must inform the accused judge. The Chief Justice needs to bring the petition to their attention. This includes petitions for removing the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice is also required to seek their response before any further action is taken.
“This is the right afforded every citizen in justice delivery, and it is provided for in article 146 procedures. In my time as a Chief Justice, I have handled five such petitions for removal of superior court judges. I heard from them before determining whether a prima facie case has been made against them. This process was necessary to decide if it deserved the setting up of the investigative committee. The committee is provided for under article 146(4),” Chief Justice Torknoo insisted.
Justice Torkonoo further pointed out that in the case of Agyei-Twum v Attorney-General and Akwettey [2005-2006] SCGLR 732, the Supreme Court ruled that before the President consults with the Council of State regarding a petition to remove a Chief Justice, a combination of evidence from the petition and the Chief Justice’s response is necessary to determine whether a prima facie case has been established for the removal.
In the case of the Chief Justice, please allow me to submit a respectful statement. The combination of the evidence in the petition and the response of the Chief Justice provides the material. This material is for consultation between His Excellency the President and eminent members of the Council of State. They will discuss this under article 146(6),” it said.
“These two sources serve to guide whether a prima facie case has been established. This determination suggests that a Committee of Inquiry should be set up under article 146 (7). The purpose is to inquire into whether the Chief Justice may be removed from office. This is the direction of the Supreme Court in the case of Agyei-Twum v Attorney-General and Akwettey [2005-2006] SCGLR 732,” the letter added.
