Justice Gertrude Torkornoo
Justice Gertrude Torkornoo’s responses to the three separate petitions calling for her removal from office have surfaced on social media, with each providing elaborate responses to the allegations against her.
Her responses to the three petitions denied the allegations made against her, describing them as unfounded and points out, for instance that in spite of the 21 allegations made against her in one of the petitions, no evidence has been provided to substantiate them.
The three petitions, filed by a group calling itself Shining Stars of Ghana, a private citizen Daniel Ofori as well as a senior police officer and private legal practitioner, Ayamga Yakubu Akolgo, have resulted in the finding of a prima facie case against her, leading President John Mahama to suspend her.
The President suspended Justice Gertrude Torkornoo following the setting up of a five-member committee to probe the three petitions calling for her removal from office.
Details have now emerged that two more petitions calling for her removal from office have been forwarded to her by the President, bringing the number to five petitions against her.
Financial ‘Misappropriation’
Daniel Ofori, in his petition, claimed financial misappropriation of GH¢261,890 of public funds for her private foreign travel with her husband, Francis Torkornoo and her daughter, Edem Torkornoo, when according to him, neither person was entitled to have their travel paid for out of the funds of the Judicial Service of Ghana.
He also alleges that in 2023, Justice Torkornoo obtained from the Judicial Service an accountable imprest in the sum of $14,000.00 to travel with her husband to Arusha, Tanzania which she failed to retire.
But Justice Torkornoo, in her response, described the allegation as an “unfortunate truth” and clarified that provisions have been made for the Chief Justice to have two holidays in a year with travel expenses, hotel accommodation and per diem to be borne by the Judicial Service and capped at 14 days per round trip.
She states that the Policy on Foreign Travels by Head of the Judiciary and Superior Court Judges provides that “The Chief Justice shall undertake unlimited official travels with either his/her spouse or other person of his/her choice in a year, fully funded by the Judicial Service.”
It further provides that “Where the Chief Justice is accompanied by the spouse or other person, he shall travel on the same class of air ticket as the Chief Justice and shall be paid the equivalent of half the per diem paid to the Chief Justice.”
“This has been the policy of Judicial Service since 2010, as amended in 2019,” Justice Torkornoo’s responses indicated, adding that “there was no infraction occasioned when I opted to travel for my two holidays with my spouse on one occasion and my daughter on the second occasion.”
On the unreturned imprest allegation, Justice Torkornoo stated that out of the $14,000 imprest given to her for any travel, she spent an amount of $4,411 out of the said imprest and retired the remaining $9,588.20.
“It is therefore unfortunate that the Petitioner, an outsider to the records of Judicial Service, should create the wrong presentation of this expenditure used for the purchase of tickets for the Chief Justice,” she asserted.
She added that she is incapable of misappropriating any public funds with respect to a ticket purchased for her or the person accompanying her on a journey, or the per diem issued, as she is not signatory to any account and does not have access to the accounts of the Judicial Service.
She also observed that most of the complaints are in relation to third parties who have not indicated that they have authorised the Petitioner to pursue their rights, adding that “The Petitioner therefore will not have any standing in law, or capacity to substantiate the alleged wrongdoings in a hearing.”
Supreme Court Nominations
The petition by Shining Stars of Ghana refers to a letter written by the Chief Justice to then President Akufo-Addo requesting for the appointment of five Justices of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
It claims this act was in breach of Article 144 of the 1992 Constitution, and so the Chief Justice should be removed from office to restore dignity and public confidence in the office.
Justice Torkornoo, in her response, stated that Prof. Kwaku Asare presented a petition to the former President for her removal, raising the same allegations which were dismissed by the then President in consultation with the Council of State.
She cited a Supreme Court case which states that “The Practice is that nominations for appointment to the Supreme Court come mainly from the Attorney-General, the Ghana Bar Association and the Chief Justice; and the Judicial Council sends their recommendations on successful candidates to the President, who then pursues the process to completion.”
Justice Torkornoo added that the rule not to try anyone twice on the same facts and question in the same forum, is an entrenched rule of Ghana’s jurisdiction.
“To the extent that this same august constitutional forum created purposely to resolve issues regarding the initial review of a Petition against any Chief Justice of the realm has concluded a determination on this issue, it is my appeal that the issue should be considered to be res judicata,” she added.
‘Demeaning Conduct’
The petition by a senior police officer and private legal practitioner, Ayamga Yakubu Akolgo, wants the Chief Justice removed from office for making demeaning and disrespectful remarks against him as barrister and court user.
The petitioner, who was arrested, detained and later warned for his conduct before the Supreme Court, avers that “the arrest was influenced by anger, prejudice, personal resentment and malice.”
But Justice Torkornoo, in her response, states that while she does not hesitate to apologise on behalf of the Supreme Court and herself if any court user, including the petitioner, had a bad experience in court while she was presiding over a case, the petition does not provide any element of “misbehaviour or incompetence that can lead to removal of a Chief Justice under the 1992 Constitution.”
She added that in the conduct of the work of the Supreme Court, the presiding judge, whether the Chief Justice or another senior member of the court, is not the court and any directions given during the court’s work are the directions of the court, and not the directions of any individual judge.
She pointed out that “Because of the weight of Article 127 (3), it is respectfully submitted that neither the Chief Justice nor any of the Justices on the panel of five may be singled out to be sanctioned for court proceedings,” adding that “the matters presented in this Petition are unable to lead to a prima facie finding of liability for removal of the Chief Justice.”
A Daily Guide Report