|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The petition against Chief Justice, Her Ladyship Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, submitted by a group called The Shining Stars of Ghana, is a formal request to the President for her removal on allegations of stated misbehaviour and incompetence, under Article 146 (1) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. The petition indicates that the Chief Justice’s actions undermine public confidence in the judiciary. The group also argues that her continued leadership is incompatible with the expectations of fairness, transparency, and competence required of such a high office. The full petition can be found here. The response from the Chief Justice can also be found here.
Summary of Allegations and Response from Chief Justice
1. Stated Misbehaviour
- Unconstitutional Proposal for Appointments
The Chief Justice is accused of violating Article 144 of the constitution by directly proposing the appointment of five judges to the Supreme Court in a letter to former President Nana Akufo-Addo dated 30th May 2024.
The petitioners argue that the Chief Justice does not have the constitutional mandate to make such proposals, as appointments must come from the President in consultation with the Judicial Council and others.
Response from the Chief Justice
In her response, the Chief Justice explained that this matter had already been raised by another petitioner (Prof. Asare) and considered by President Akufo-Addo in consultation with the Council of State. She added that the President and Council of State concluded that no constitutional provision was breached, citing that it is common practice for nominations to originate from the Chief Justice, Attorney-General, or Ghana Bar Association.
She added that the Supreme Court (in the Ghana Bar Association v Attorney General case and Sky v Attorney General) acknowledged this practice. Therefore, she argues, the issue has already been decided and should be treated as res judicata, which means that the problem has been legally settled and is not subject to re-litigation.
2. Incompetence
- Violation of Natural Justice
The petition points to a Supreme Court case (Afenyo v. Speaker of Parliament and Attorney General) in which the Chief Justice presided. The court ruled on an ex parte application without hearing from the Speaker of the Parliament, the 1st defendant, regarding the Speaker’s declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant. - Procedural Lapses
The Chief Justice is accused of failing to ensure that the proper legal processes were followed:- The Speaker did not file an affidavit.
- No legal arguments were presented on the Speaker’s behalf before the ruling.
- The court granted a stay of execution of the Speaker’s ruling without hearing him, which the petitioners say violated Article 23 of the constitution, which guarantees procedural fairness.
Supporting Legal and Historical References
The petitioners also cited several landmark cases to emphasise the importance of audi alteram partem, which means everyone has the right to be heard. The cases cited include;
- Republic v Chancellor of the University of Cambridge (1723)
- Republic v High Court, Denu
- Republic v High Court, Accra, ex parte Salloum
Response from Chief Justice
The Chief Justice emphasised that Supreme Court decisions are collective, not individual; thus, she could not be singled out for criticism as panels make rulings for at least five Justices. She added that every panel justice signs the final ruling, indicating shared responsibility.
The Chief Justice also quoted Article 127 (3) of the Constitution, which states that Justices are immune from liability for judicial acts performed in the exercise of their powers.
In her defence, she asserted that the proper way to challenge such rulings is through judicial processes, not personal accusations.
Conclusion
The petition against Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo accuses her of breaches of constitutional procedures and principles of natural justice. However, the Chief Justice’s responses highlight established legal practices, collective judicial responsibility, and prior presidential clearance on similar concerns.
