History will remember that a Chief Justice fought an “unfair” process to get her removed, but her own association kept quiet, a Political Scientist at the University of Ghana, Dr Joshua Zebuntie Zaato has said in reaction to the struggles of the embattled Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo.
Dr Zaato said that the legal fight against the process to remove her is a virtuous one.
“Why is the union so quiet on this matter, so disinterested when one of their members is going through this matter. This is happening to one of their own, and they are quiet,” Dr Zaato said on the Key Points on TV3 Saturday, May 31.
“Her fight is a virtuous fight. She is fighting with honour and integrity, she will go but history will remember that she fought to the last end,” he added.
Background
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an injunction application filed by suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, which sought to halt the proceedings of a presidential committee investigating petitions for her removal from office.
Justice Torkornoo filed the application on Wednesday, May 21, 2025, asking the apex court to issue an interlocutory injunction against the six-member committee established by President John Mahama.
The application aimed to restrain the committee from carrying out any inquiry related to the petitions until the substantive case is resolved.
According to court documents, the Chief Justice sought an order specifically barring Justices Gabriel Scott Pwamang and Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu—as well as other committee members including Daniel Yao Domelevo, Major Flora Bazuwaaruah Dalugo, and Professor James Sefah Dziasah—from participating in the investigation.
She also requested that Justices Pwamang and Adibu-Asiedu be disqualified from presiding over or contributing to the committee’s deliberations.
However, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling on Wednesday, May 28, dismissed the application. The full written ruling is expected to be made available on June 12, 2025.
This decision marks a significant development in the ongoing legal battle surrounding the suspension of Justice Torkornoo and the constitutional questions it raises.
