Concerns have been triggered across Ghana’s legal, political, and civil society landscapes due to the Chief Justice’s (CJ) decision to remain in office despite the establishment of a prima facie case against her. Prominent legal practitioners and civic groups are calling for her recusal to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. Many argue that the refusal to step aside during ongoing investigations sends a negative signal about the judiciary’s commitment to impartiality and the rule of law.
Dr. Kofi Abotsi, a constitutional law expert and former dean of the GIMPA Law School, stated that the CJ’s continued refusal to recuse herself, even as due process proceeds in the face of a prima facie case, further prejudices the integrity of her public standing. He added that, in such matters, perception is just as critical as substance.
The prima facie case is based on credible complaints and supporting evidence and has cleared the preliminary legal threshold needed for a formal inquiry. While the specifics are not disclosed due to procedural confidentiality, legal analysts believe the matter should not be treated lightly.
The Constitution does not mandate automatic recusal under these circumstances. However, precedent and best practice suggest that a temporary withdrawal from office during investigations could help protect institutional integrity. Aisha Sulemana of the Centre for Democratic Vigilance views this as a defining moment for judicial accountability in Ghana, warning that, by remaining in office, the Chief Justice risks casting a shadow over every ruling from the Bench during this period.
The suspended Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, has filed an application at the Supreme Court seeking to restrain a committee set up by President John Mahama to investigate petitions seeking her removal from office. In the suit filed on Wednesday, May 21, 2025, the Chief Justice is requesting an interlocutory injunction to halt all proceedings of the committee, pending the final determination of the case.
According to court documents, the Chief Justice wants the Supreme Court to issue an order restraining the six-member committee—composed of Justices Gabriel Scott Pwamang and Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, as well as Daniel Yao Domelevo, Major Flora Bazuwaaruah Dalugo, and Professor James Sefah Dziasah—from proceeding with any inquiry related to the petitions brought against her.
However, critics contend that this stance blurs the line between legal formalism and ethical responsibility. The principle that judicial officers should avoid even the appearance of impropriety, previously emphasised by former Supreme Court Justice V.C.R.A.C. Crabbe in earlier writings, is now being widely cited in public discourse.
Calls are increasing for the Judicial Council and the Presidency to take decisive action, while others are calling for special consideration in the ongoing inquiry based on her gender.
The unfolding situation has sparked debates on social media and in academic circles, with many urging that Ghana’s democratic institutions must hold even their highest officers accountable, in line with the principles of transparency and good governance. As the investigation proceeds, the nation is observing closely, mindful that the strength of a democracy depends not only on its laws but also on the integrity of those who interpret and enforce them.
By: Gloria Dzifa Ashinyo
