A former Chief Justice, Sophia Abena Boafoaa Akuffo, has condemned the Committee that investigated the petitions leading to the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo.
The former CJ asserts that the committee breached certain aspects of the in-camera provision in Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, describing this action as “unbecoming.”
Madam Akuffo, in an exclusive interview with TV3’s Joseph Ackah-Blay on Tuesday, September 2, 2025, stated that she was unable to come to terms with the fact that her evidence before the committee, which went viral on social media, was leaked.
According to her, the in-camera provision, as defined by the Supreme Court, required that the entire process be discreet; however, the proceedings in Torkornoo’s hearing were widely publicised.
She had opined that the entire hearing was unfair, when asked if the committee had treated the removed Chief Justice fairly. “You want my opinion from the heart, mind, soul, and spirit? No, she didn’t,” she asserted.
“A process that is supposed to be purely in-camera and that expression has been defined by the Supreme Court and that definition still remains that from the complaint, all the way till the President speaks at the end of the matter, come under the same cover of in-camera and therefore is supposed to be confidential.
“So, you can imagine the umbrage that I felt to receive from social media, something somebody had sent to me, where the fact, of which I am not in the least bid ashamed and if I have to do the same again I will, the fact that I’ve gone to give evidence before the Committee was on social media. How did that get there?” she asked.
The Chief Justice was sacked by the President on Monday, September 1, 2025. This followed the presentation of a report to him by the Committee tasked with investigating three petitions for her removal submitted by separate entities.
In a statement issued by the Minister in charge of Government Communications, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, on Monday, September 1, 2025, it was stated that the President acted in accordance with Article 146(9) of the 1992 Constitution.
According to the statement, the Chief Justice’s removal was based on a petition by Samuel Ofori, which was investigated by the Committee constituted in accordance with Article 146(6).
“After considering the petition and the evidence, the Committee found that the grounds stated misbehaviour under Article 146(1) had been established and recommended her removal from office,” portions of the statement contained.
The Committee was constituted after a prima facie case was determined in the three separate petitions that sought the removal of the Chief Justice from office. In line with constitutional requirements, President Mahama constituted a five-member committee to conduct the inquiry.
The committee was chaired by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang of the Supreme Court. Other members included Daniel Yaw Domelevo, a former Auditor-General; Major Flora Bazaanura Dalugo of the Ghana Armed Forces (GAF); and Professor James Sefah Dzisah, Associate Professor at the University of Ghana.
Prior to the commencement of the inquiry, the President, on April 22, 2025, suspended the Chief Justice after the prima facie case was determined from the three separate petitions, as enshrined in the Constitution.
Her suspension, carried out in line with Article 146(6) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, was done in consultation with the Council of State.
Subsequently, a five-member committee chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang was appointed by the President to investigate the allegations.
Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, after presenting the report to the President outlined what their mandate was.
“To the committee, our mandate and remit as set out under Article 146 Clauses (7) and (8) of the Constitution is clear and it is to inquire into the petitions in camera, hear the person against whom the petitions have been brought in her defence by herself or by a lawyer or other expert of her choice and then to make a recommendation to the President.”
Below is his full speech…
Your Excellency John Dramani Mahama, President of the Republic of Ghana, the Chief of Staff, the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, other Ministers of State present, Legal Counsel to the President, Lawyer Marrietta Brew and other officials of the Presidency, representatives of the Media present, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Mr President, in March this year, you received three petitions pursuant to Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution for the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude A. E. Sackey Torkornoo, and the public was made aware of this fact. The subsequent processes, as dictated by the Constitution and the decisions of our Supreme Court, were followed, culminating in the establishment of our committee under Article 146, Clause 6 of the Constitution. The nation was further duly informed, and when we commenced our work on 15th May, 2025, the Minister of State for Government Communications was briefed and he notified the public about it.
There has been considerable interest in our work shown through comments and opinions by Ghanaians and international observers as well. However, the committee restrained itself all along from reacting even when blatant false statements made about members of the committee and our work. To the committee, our mandate and remit as set out under Article 146 Clauses (7) and (8) of the Constitution is clear and it is to inquire into the petitions in camera, hear the person against whom the petitions have been brought in her defence by herself or by a lawyer or other expert of her choice and then to make a recommendation to the President.
As I have said supra, three petitions were referred to us and though all three petitions seek for the same relief, each petition is distinct and would succeed or fail on its individual strengths and weaknesses.
Mr. President, without disclosing the substance of the proceedings, and since in camera proceedings is not the same as in secret, we can state that in respect of the first petition, we received evidence by Mr. Daniel Ofori, the first petitioner, through thirteen witnesses. Similarly, the Chief Justice in her defence also called twelve witnesses, including expert witnesses as she is entitled to do under the Constitution. The Chief Justice testified personally at the inquiry and was cross-examined. The committee received about 10,000 pages of documentary exhibits from both sides. There were four lawyers that represented the first petitioner and four lawyers represented the Chief Justice.
Advertisement
Mr. President, after critical and dispassionate examination and assessment of all the evidence including the expert evidence against the provisions of the Constitution and the relevant laws, we have, without fear or favour, arrived at a recommendation on the first petition. The recommendation is contained in this envelop which we hereby hand over to you.
The second petitioner as well as the Chief Justice pleaded with the committee that the second petition which would have been next to be inquired into be adjourned and we acceded to their requests.
Accordingly, we shall be reporting on the second and third petitions in due time.
Thank you Mr President.
