By Ghana Eye Report
The Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo is seeking for copies of the petitions seeking to remove her from office, according to a letter from her outfit on Thursday.
In a letter addressed to President John Dramani Mahama, Chairman of the Council of State and former Speaker of Parliament; Rt. Hon. Doe Adjaho, and former Chief Justice and Member of the Council of State, Justice Sophia Akuffo, the Chief Justice observed that no consideration that affects the rights of a defendant can be made unless the defendant has been given notice of the contents of a charge, and an opportunity to respond to them.
“Respectfully, on the night of Tuesday 25th March 2025, a communication from the Presidency was circulated on social media announcing that the President has received three petitions for my removal as Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana pursuant to article 146 of the 1992 Constitution. The communication further stated that the President had forwarded the three petitions to the Council of State to commence the consultation process mandated by article 146 (6) of the 1992 Constitution,” said the Chief Justice.
“Respectfully, as you are no doubt aware/ it is the most fundamental precept of the common law and our constitutional dispensation ingrained into the justice delivery process, that no consideration that affects the rights of a defendant can be made unless the defendant has been given notice of the contents of a charge, and an opportunity to respond to them. Further, no defendant can be subjected to a trial unless the preliminary process of receiving their response has been adhered to. This forms part of the age-old audi alteram partem rule of natural justice, and the fundamental rights of citizens under Article 19, article 23, and Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution, and all decisions in Ghana’s jurisprudence.
Up to date on 27th March 2025, I have not been shown the three petitions mentioned in the communication of 25th March 2025 or given an opportunity to respond to them, which material is expected to form the premise for the consultations between the Council of State and His Excellency the President under article 146 (6), as to whether there is a need to set up the Committee of Inquiry described in article 146 (6) and 146 (7) for the trial of any issues raised,” CJ Torkornoo emphasized.
She further asked for at least one week period to respond when copies of the three said petitions were given to her.
“I am by this letter humbly and respectfully asking His Excellency the President and eminent members of the Council of State to forward the petitions against me to me, and allow me at least seven days after receipt of same, to provide my response to you, which response can then form part of the material that you conduct the consultations anticipated under 146 (6), before the possible setting up of a Committee of Inquiry under article 146 (7),” added the embattled CJ.
The Chief Justice explained in detail per the provisions of the 1992 Constitution the processes involved in the removal of a Superior Court Judge and how she has handled some of such cases.
“As you are aware, when a petition for removal of a Superior Court Judge under Article 146 (1) is forwarded to the Chief Justice, the first requirement of due process is for the Chief Justice to bring the petition to the attention of the accused Judge, and to obtain their response to the petition. This is the right afforded to every citizen in justice delivery, and it is provided for in the Article 146 procedures. In my time as Chief Justice, I have handled five such petitions for the removal of superior court Judges and heard from them before determining whether a prima facie case has been made against them to merit the setting up of the investigative committee provided for under article 146 (4).
It is the combination of the evidence in the petition, and the response of the Judge that guides the Chief Justice to determine, as a sole enquirer under Article 146 (3), whether a prima facie case has been established against the Judge, to merit the setting up of the investigative committee of three Justices and two eminent citizens to conduct a hearing of the complaint against the Judge pursuant to article 146 (4).”
According to her, in the case of the Chief Justice, it is the combination of the evidence in the petition, and the response of the Chief Justice, that provides the material for consultation between His Excellency the President and eminent members of the Council of State under article 146 (6).
These two sources, she further emphasized serve to guide whether a prima facie case has been established, such that a Committee of Inquiry should be set up under article 146 (7) to inquire into whether the Chief Justice may be removed from office and cited the direction of the Supreme Court in the case of Agyei -Twum v Attorney General and Akwettey [2005-2006] SCGLR 732. Enditem
Source: Ghana Eye Report
Share Us
