A US-based Ghanaian lawyer, Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare, believes a public statement by the suspended Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, defies Article 146(8) and constitutes a separate ground for removal.
On Wednesday, June 25, 2025, the suspended CJ addressed the media, alleging human rights violations and unconstitutional practices in the ongoing impeachment process.
The Chief Justice was suspended by President John Dramani Mahama after three citizens filed separate petitions calling for her removal.
Following the petitions, a prima facie case was established, prompting the President to suspend the CJ pending investigation by a committee to determine the validity of the allegations.
However, Chief Justice Torkornoo, in an application to the Supreme Court, requested that the petition, typically held in camera as Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution mandates, be made public.
Although the application was thrashed by the Supreme Court, Professor Asare argues that this request constitutes a breach of the Constitution, warranting separate grounds for her removal, as it violates her constitutional oath of office.
He explains that the CJ’s actions contravene the “…and that I will at all times uphold, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Ghana” part of the oath.
According to him, this “wilful and public defiance of Article 146” is not only inconsistent with the oath but also “a repudiation of it.” He adds that the act “strikes at the moral and constitutional foundation on which judicial authority rests.”
In a Facebook post Wednesday, June 25, following the CJ’s media address, Professor Asare argued that although the initial petitions didn’t cite breach of Article 146, the CJ’s recent actions violating this provision could and should be used as grounds for her removal from office.
“Therefore, the Chief Justice’s public commentary—issued in defiance of Article 146(8)—constitutes an actionable breach that can, and must, be considered as a separate and independent ground for removal, notwithstanding its absence from the initial petition.
He explained that the seriousness of such a breach is underscored by Article 69(1)(a) of the Constitution, which states that the President shall be removed from office if found to have acted in wilful violation of the oath of office.
In his analysis, he argued that if the Constitution mandates removal for the President in such instances, the Chief Justice cannot be exempted.
“If the Constitution permits the removal of a President for wilfully violating their oath or any constitutional provision, it cannot be argued that the Chief Justice, who swears an equivalent constitutional oath, should be held to a lower standard. The principle of constitutional equality and institutional accountability demands no less,” he added.
