Supreme Court Dismisses AG’s Objection in Chief Justice Torkonoo’s Removal Case
ACCRA | May 28, 2025 — The Supreme Court has rejected a preliminary objection filed by the Attorney General, which sought to remove Justice Scott Pwamang, Justice Adibu-Asiedu, and other committee members from a suit initiated by suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo.
The ruling allows the named justices—who form part of the investigative committee probing allegations against the suspended Chief Justice—to remain as defendants in the ongoing constitutional challenge.
Background of the Case
Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, suspended from office in April over alleged misconduct, is contesting the legality of the process initiated to remove her. Together with her husband, she has filed a writ and injunction application aimed at halting the proceedings of the Pwamang-led committee.
In her application, the Chief Justice is asking the apex court to:
- Permit her to waive the right to a private (in-camera) hearing,
- Declare that the prima facie determination of the committee is unconstitutional, and
- Bar the committee members from continuing their work.
Attorney General’s Objection and Supreme Court’s Ruling
Deputy Attorney General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, representing the state, had argued that the committee members were not properly named as parties in the writ, and thus should be removed from the case.
However, former Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame, now representing the Chief Justice, countered that reliefs were clearly being sought against the individuals, making them necessary parties.
The five-member Supreme Court panel, chaired by Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, sided with Dame and dismissed the state’s objection.
“The committee members are clearly implicated in the reliefs sought by the plaintiff and must remain parties to the suit,” the court held.
Implications
The decision marks a significant development in what is shaping up to be a landmark constitutional battle over the removal process for justices of the superior courts. The ruling also affirms that individuals involved in quasi-judicial roles can be challenged in their personal capacities when constitutional issues are at stake.
The case continues to generate intense public interest, particularly in legal and political circles, as it tests the balance between judicial accountability and judicial independence under Article 146 of the Constitution.
Please download our HOTDIGITAL ONLINE APP and follow HotDigital Online on our social media platforms to stay updated on our upcoming initiatives.
#HotDigitalHealthAwareness #CommunityHealth #GhanaNursesAssociationUK #HealthMatters #HotDigitalOnline #StrongerTogether
