Kwaku Ansa-Asare
A former Director of the Ghana School of Law, Kwaku Ansa-Asare, has criticised the removal of Justice Gertrude Torkornoo from the Supreme Court as lacking legal basis.
According to him, Justice Torkornoo’s removal as Chief Justice does not affect her role as Supreme Court judge, as the committee was set up to probe allegations of “stated misbehaviour or incompetence” into acts committed as Chief Justice and not as a Supreme Court judge.
Speaking at the 8th Congregation of MountCrest University College in Accra last Saturday, Mr. Ansa-Asare indicated that Ghana’s constitutional framework does not support the removal of Justice Torkornoo from her position as a Justice of the Supreme Court, even if she is no longer Chief Justice.
He has, therefore, advised the government to formally retire Justice Torkornoo so that she can be entitled to her hard-earned retirement benefits.
“My advice is that the former Chief Justice be formally retired as a justice of the Supreme Court so that she can take a hard-earned entitlement,” he urged.
Last week, private legal practitioner, Martin Kpebu, supported calls to grant Justice Torkornoo her retirement benefits despite her removal from office.
According to him, it would be unfair to deny Justice Torkornoo’s entitlements, noting that some of the issues cited against her had also occurred under her predecessors.
Suit
Justice Torkornoo was removed from office as Chief Justice and a Supreme Court judge on September 1, 2025, following the receipt of the report of a five-member committee that probed a petition filed against her.
She became the first ever Chief Justice to be removed from office following the recommendation of a committee probing allegations of misconduct and misbehaviour in the Fourth Republic.
She has filed a suit at the High Court 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 avers that the decision by the President to rely on the committee’s purported findings to remove her as Chief Justice as well as a Justice of the Supreme Court is wrong and constitutes a violation of her human rights.
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.”
By Gibril Abdul Razak