Vice President of IMANI Africa, Kofi Bentil, has stressed that the legality of former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo’s removal can only be settled by the Supreme Court, not through political interpretations.
He explained that in a constitutional democracy, no action is deemed final until it has been tested in court and judicially pronounced upon.
“In our constitutional republic, nothing is final until the justices of the land make a pronouncement on it. Unless the person chooses not to pursue it in court, or the statute of limitation runs out, the matter remains open to judicial review,” he stated on TV3’s KeyPoints on September 20.
According to Mr. Bentil, legal processes must distinguish between acts that are void and those that are voidable.
He argued that any action taken without proper legal authority is “void ab initio” and therefore has no effect, even if it appears to hold sway temporarily due to ignorance or acceptance by the public.
He warned against mixing constitutional processes with political processes, saying such mistakes risk turning Ghana into a “banana republic” where political convenience overrides legal order.
Touching on the controversy surrounding Justice Torkornoo, Mr. Bentil clarified that the Constitution provides separate processes for removing a Chief Justice and for removing a Justice of the Supreme Court.
“The composition of the committee that removes a Chief Justice is different from that which removes a Supreme Court judge. The fact that one process may have succeeded does not automatically translate into the other. They are distinct,” he explained.
He further pointed out that administrative lapses cited against the former Chief Justice do not amount to incapacity in her role as a Supreme Court judge.
While acknowledging that the removal has raised serious public concerns, Mr. Bentil cautioned against relying solely on perceptions.
“Optics are not law. If the public feels the law does not go far enough, then the law should be amended. But as it stands, the constitutional process must be respected,” he argued.
Mr. Bentil urged the judiciary to seize the opportunity to clarify the constitutional ambiguities surrounding the case.
He cited the famous U.S. case Marbury v. Madison as an example of how the courts can assert their authority to settle fundamental constitutional questions.
“This is an opportunity for the justices to deliberate and tell us finally how we proceed on this. Legal processes should be allowed to run their full course, rather than being railroaded into political outcomes,” he said.
Former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo was recently removed from office by President John Mahama, sparking heated debate about whether the process was constitutional.
Critics argue that the President exceeded his powers, while others believe the removal followed due process. The removed Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo has since filed for review of removal as justice of the High Court.
