The sudden removal of Ghana’s Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkonoo, has thrown the nation into heated debate. For some, it is a moment of constitutional triumph—proof that no office, not even the highest in the judiciary, is above accountability. For others, it feels like a dangerous precedent that could weaken judicial independence.
What is clear, however, is that the 1992 Constitution dictated the path. Once the investigative committee established under Article 146 found grounds of “stated misbehaviour” and recommended her removal, President John Mahama had no legal discretion. The constitution left him only one choice: to act.
“This was not politics; it was duty,” said Felix Kwakye Ofosu, Minister of State for Government Communication. “The president simply obeyed the law.”
How it unfolded
The process began months earlier, when petitions—including one from a private citizen, Daniel Ofori—alleged misconduct by the Chief Justice. Following procedure, a five-member panel was set up, led by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott-Pwamang. For months, in closed sessions, the committee listened to witnesses, reviewed documents, and weighed evidence.
Their verdict was blunt: misconduct had been established, and removal was warranted. By law, the president was bound to follow. Within hours of receiving the report, Mahama announced Torkonoo’s dismissal.
Speed or suspicion?
To government officials, the swift action was a mark of efficiency. To critics, including former deputy attorney general Joseph Kpemka, it smacked of a pre-arranged outcome.
Supporters of Torkonoo worry about the optics: that even when legal, the sight of a president removing a chief justice risks undermining confidence in judicial independence.
The Chief Justice’s stance
Observers note that Justice Torkonoo’s combative approach—appealing to external bodies like ECOWAS and publicly questioning the process—may have undermined her defence. Legal analyst Kwaku Ansa-Asare argued she “shot herself in the foot” by failing to fully navigate the very constitutional framework she once swore to uphold.
A democracy tested
For many, this is less about one individual and more about the balance of power in Ghana’s young democracy. The government insists this episode proves the constitution works: rules were followed, and justice was served. Critics caution that even a lawful process can be manipulated in future by those in power.
Two other petitions against Torkonoo remain pending, leaving the judiciary’s waters unsettled. For now, the immediate outcome is final—she has been removed. But the larger question lingers: was this a victory for constitutional order, or a warning sign of how fragile judicial independence can be?
What no one disputes is that this decision will shape how Ghanaians view the relationship between the executive and the judiciary for years to come.
