Justice Gertrude Torkornoo
ON JUNE 25, JUSTICE TORKORNOO HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE AND EXPLAINED WHY SHE HAD FOUND IT NECESSARY TO TELL HER STORY TO THE MEDIA, AND TO THE COUNTRY.
The following are a few excerpts from her very detailed, gripping account:
“The removal process that I am involved in as Chief Justice, is historic. In all of Ghana’s 68-year history as an independent republic, there has never been a hearing for the removal of the Chief Justice. One would therefore have hoped that if such a process becomes necessary, it would provide good guidance and precedent for nation building.
“Unfortunately, every step of the removal process being undertaken against me is being done in a manner that breaks every rule on how justice is delivered in the country. And this is why I find the need to draw the nation’s attention to the serious violations of the Constitution and law in the process, and the danger it holds for the development of the nation’s democracy.
“Though I am in the process alone, its effects ripple far beyond me as a person.
“In order to address the troubling violations of the Constitution and illegality of the proceedings that had become obvious from the beginning of the process, I applied for the proceedings of the committee to be held in public …because I know that the secrecy of the proceedings for removing Judges was not created in the Constitution to be used as a cover up for any agenda.
“The Constitution expects that the only reasons for removing the Chief Justice and public officials subject to article 146 will be matters that make them unable or unfit to perform the functions of their office, and matters that affect sensitive national interests, public order or safety.
“In my case, nothing in the petitions I had received reflected weighty issues of sensitivity or national interest. Indeed, all the matters in the petitions had been discussed extensively in the media before the hearings began.
“However, the members of the Supreme Court that heard the application refused my application for an open hearing, and the supplementary affidavit informing the court of violations of human rights was also struck out of records on the request of the Attorney-General. I have decided to make this Statement because the violations have not stopped, but have escalated beyond anything I could have imagined as possible in justice delivery.
“I have heard on several occasions, from loved ones (and others that) it would be best if I just retired or resigned, rather than subject myself to an ill motivated process. I have also received threats and veiled threats to the effect that if I fail to resign or voluntarily retire, I will be made to suffer some harm or the other.
“I have also heard several commentaries in the media about how this process was born out of a stated political agenda to remove me and that it is a political effort that can only result in the charade of a hearing that is played out.
“Let me assure everybody that I do not seek to cling to a title or position. However, as a lawyer of 38 years standing, a Judge of 21 years standing, and Chief Justice of Ghana who has served in the rule of law all of my working life, I consider it my onerous duty and obligation to speak up concerning the administration of justice in this country.
“The situation I have been confronted with has shown me a model of injustice that I would never have thought possible if I had not been exposed to it. This is why despite great personal discomfort, I have decided to marshal every effort, in law and leadership, to answer to this situation.”
ON THE OFORI PETITION:
“Only two out of the several allegations he makes involve Mr. Daniel Ofori personally, as a court user. In two allegations, he complains that I misappropriated public funds to buy a ticket for my husband and daughter to travel with me.
“In answer to this, I handed over my letter of appointment to prove that in my conditions of appointment, Ghana graciously gave me two vacations in a year as Chief Justice. In the Judicial Service Travel Policy since 2010, the Chief Justice can never travel alone for security reasons, and the Chief Justice is always allowed to travel with the spouse or another person of their choice.
“Why would anyone demand that I go on a vacation given to me as Chief Justice with my security escort alone, instead of going with my husband, or with my daughter? And how can this be a reason for subjecting a Chief Justice to a committee of inquiry?
“Mr. Ofori also complains that my family members should not have been given per diem. But the Judicial Service travel policy provides that when the Chief Justice travels with anyone, whether police escort, another Judge, a secretary or spouse, that person is given per diem.
“Mr. Ofori’s petition includes a lie that that I refused to retire accountable imprest of US$14,000 that I was given when I travelled. But records are available to show that I spent US$4,400 out of the $14,000 accountable imprest given. I handed over the remaining US$9,600 to the Judicial Secretary, with records on how the US$4,400 was spent, two days after I returned to Ghana,” Justice Torkornoo emphasised.
For the record, this writer had supported Justice Torkornoo’s request, backed by a number of legal luminaries too, for public hearings of the proceedings, in an article published online on May 26. Referencing the memorable Election Petition of 2012, I recalled that the then Chief Justice, Mrs. Georgina Wood, earned much commendation when she granted live coverage of the proceedings, because of the positive impact.
Needless to say, the saga has generated much, continuing debate, with spirited support for President Mahama’s decision, because in their view the President had followed what the Constitution prescribes in the matter of petitions. However, there have been equally passionate sympathy and backing for Justice Torkornoo, not only in Ghana, but also abroad.
On July 1, People’s National Party leader Janet Nabila presented a petition to Asantehene Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, seeking his intervention in what the party describes as a politically motivated attempt by President John Dramani Mahama and the NDC to remove the Chief Justice.
Then on August 14, the Bar Council of England and Wales and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association issued a compelling statement on the suspension. Citing Ghana’s strong commitment to the rule of law, the two bodies called on the President of Ghana and the Executive government of Ghana to:
“Immediately and without delay, reinstate the Chief Justice of Ghana to her Office, consistent with both the hitherto strong attachment to the rule of law demonstrated by Ghana and also, the constitutional duties incumbent upon them”
Former Attorney General Ayikoi Otoo, the lead counsel for Justice Torkornoo, has dismissed the grounds for her removal, insisting that there is no evidence of wrongdoing to justify her dismissal.
Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express, Mr. Otoo questioned the very basis of the decision, stressing that his client had done nothing wrong. Furthermore, he accused the committee of deliberately ignoring an essential document that would have exonerated her, the judiciary’s travel policy.
“There is a travel policy for the judiciary (but) the committee didn’t refer to it although we tendered it.”
An emphatic condemnation came from former Chief Justice and Council of State member, Justice Sophia Akuffo. She described the process as unjust and deeply troubling for Ghana’s judicial system.
“She did not get a fair trial. Even though it is not a trial strictly speaking, it was handled as though it were a treason trial,” she said.
MY VIEW:
My observation is that the stipulation in the national Constitution, “Under Article 146(9), the President is required to act in accordance with the committee’s recommendation” has been much quoted to justify the removal. Thus, it would seem that it’s the Constitution that has been used as justification by her opponents, and being blamed by supporters of Justice Torkornoo.
However, with a review of the national Constitution this year, it is to be hoped that the modalities related to the unprecedented removal of a Chief Justice the nation has witnessed, would have been factored into their work, because it seems the procedure has serious shortcomings.
For example, the selection of the members of such an investigative body, clearly needs to be reviewed. And why is it not binding on such a committee to take account of any, or all, documents presented by a defendant?
Moreover, as some have questioned, if Parliament has a major role in the appointment of a Chief Justice, why can’t the legislature also have a say in a prima facie finding?
Above all, it seems to me that if an accused chooses to waive their right to in-camera hearings, and requests public hearings, that should be granted.
Public hearings requested by a defendant should surely pose no problems for those alleging, or those prosecuting, if they have nothing to hide; if their intention is purely prompted by proven, evident national interest, without malice.
And I salute the courage of Justice Torkornoo in her continuing fight for justice.
By Ajoa Yeboah-Afari