Justice Gertrude Torkornoo
The Attorney General has filed a motion to refer to the Supreme Court, an interpretation of the constitution regarding whether a Chief Justice loses his or her place on the Supreme Court Bench upon removal from office.
This is in response to a legal challenge mounted at the High Court by former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, who avers that the President had no constitutional power to remove her as a Justice of the Supreme Court as a result of her removal from office as Chief Justice.
Among her arguments is that the petition which led to her removal as both a judge and Chief Justice only questioned actions she supposedly took in her capacity as Chief Justice, and not as a Supreme Court judge.
Although the court is yet to convene for the matter, the Office of the Attorney General has filed a motion asking the court to refer some constitutional questions to the Supreme Court for interpretation regarding the issue.
Among the questions is whether “a person may retain his or her previous judicial office, if any, upon appointment to the office of Chief Justice.”
It is also asking the Supreme Court to interpret whether the Chief Justice’s membership of the Superior Courts of Judicature is as a result of her position as Chief Justice.
The Attorney General wants the Apex Court to decide whether “a person may retain his or her membership of the Superior Courts of Judicature upon removal from office of the Chief Justice.”
Suit
Former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo has filed an application for judicial review challenging her removal as a Justice of the Supreme Court by President John Mahama.
According to her, the Gabriel Pwamang committee which recommended her removal as a judge acted in excess of its mandate as it was set up to probe three petitions calling for her removal as Chief Justice and not a judge.
She argues that the Chief Justice is the administrative head of the Judiciary, a function not performed by other Justices of the Supreme Court, therefore, removal as a Chief Justice does not imply automatic removal as a Justice of the Superior Court, which includes the Supreme Court.
She is seeking among others, a declaration that “the President is devoid of power to remove a Justice of the Superior Court from office without recourse to the mandatory procedure set out in Article 146 of the Constitution.”
Opposition
The Office of the Attorney General, in its response, argues that the Office of the Chief Justice is distinct from other judicial offices and attainable only by a fresh and whole appointment, rather than by accumulation or enlargement of, or elevation or promotion from other judicial office.
It also argues that a person’s membership of any of the Superior Courts, being wholly, absolutely, and exclusively dependent on his or her attainment of the office of the Chief Justice cannot remain upon his or her removal from the Office of the Chief Justice.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak