Private legal practitioner Austin Brako Powers says the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo was not handled properly.
He argued that while the Constitution allows for the removal of a Chief Justice on grounds such as infirmity, misconduct, or inability to perform official duties, the threshold for such action must be high because of the sensitive nature of the office.
According to him, the allegations against the former Chief Justice remain so since some evidence presented by her lawyers was reportedly not admitted during the proceedings.
“To the understanding of the lawyers, they had evidence to react to some of the allegations but they were not accepted. So it was left for the committee to decide whether or not the allegations could be categorised as misconduct,” he said.
Mr. Brako Powers noted that the audit report, which cited payments of per diems to the Chief Justice’s daughter and husband in breach of state policy, did not necessarily amount to a constitutional offence.
He explained that a breach of administrative or financial policy should not automatically lead to dismissal.
“The remedy in such instances could have been to demand a refund of the monies or take corrective measures, rather than resorting to removal,” he argued.
He warned that allowing the removal of a Chief Justice on grounds that are not clearly proven sets a worrying precedent.
“Removing a Chief Justice is a serious constitutional activity that must be exercised judiciously,” he stressed.
