Former Supreme Court Justice William Anaam Atuguba has disagreed with removed Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo’s description of her hearing process as unfair.
According to him, Madam Torkornoo’s claim that she wasn’t given a fair hearing due to her family being denied access to the trial and the searches conducted on her doesn’t constitute a valid basis for claiming the trial was unfair.
During her trial, the former Chief Justice challenged the substance and timing of the petitions and questioned the justification behind the establishment of a prima facie case.
Drawing on Ghana’s judicial history, she noted that no sitting Chief Justice has ever been removed under such circumstances, warning that the precedent being set poses a threat to judicial independence.
Her remarks reignited national debate over the separation of powers, constitutional safeguards, and the need for reforms to protect the integrity of the judiciary in Ghana’s democratic architecture.
During an exclusive interview with TV3’s Beatrice Claire Abena Adu on Monday, September 8, 2025, Justice Atuguba said “these things are neither here nor there.”
“In the long run, it is the substance of the matter that matters,” he stated.
Justice Atuguba explained, citing the relevant provision, that the process was duly followed. He wondered how she could claim she wasn’t given a fair hearing during the in-camera proceedings, asking if her concerns were due to the bodily searches or her family’s absence.
“Article 146(5) says ‘All proceedings under this Article shall be held in-camera and the Justice or Chairman against whom the petition is made is entitled to be heard in defence by himself or a lawyer or other expert of his choice’. So if it’s in-camera, where is the provision for allowing your relatives in?” he quizzed.
Background
The Chief Justice was dismissed 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.”
