Chief Justice Begs John Mahama: Tell Me My Crime & My Accusers

IT is curious that the Council of State has been tasked to review and advice on three different petitions sent to the Presidency against the Chief Justice of Ghana and calling for her removal from office when she herself, the accused party is not aware of the content of the petitions, the exact accusations being raised against her and the persons making the said accusations.

Meanwhile, the Office of the President has issued a public statement to announce receipt of the three petitions and the fact that the Office has forwarded all three to the Council of State for investigations to commence.

Chief Justice, Her Ladyship, Justice Gertrude Araba Torkornoo, who stands accused in this case, has no copy whatsoever to prepare her response and has therefore officially written to the Presidency requesting to know the contents of three different petitions and who her accusers are.

Justice Torkornoo says in the name of natural justice, she as the accused party deserves to know the accusations so she can respond accordingly so the Presidency and the Council of State may get to know whether or not there is even a case worth investigating.

“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)”, Justice Torkornoo noted in her letter.

She explained the legal and constitutional basis of her request for copies of the petitions filed against her:

 “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.

“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 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 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).

“Respectfully, in the case of the Chief Justice, please allow me to submit that 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 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. This is the direction of the Supreme Court in the case of Agyei – Twum v Attorney-General and Akwettey [2005-2006] SCGLR 732.”