FULL TEXT: Reliefs sought by suspended Chief Justice Torkornoo in suit challenging her removal

Suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo has filed a suit at the Supreme Court challenging her removal from office by President John Dramani Mahama.

In the suit filed on May 21, 2025, Justice Torkornoo is seeking a number of declarations and reliefs from the apex court, arguing that the process leading to her suspension was unconstitutional and flawed.

Among the key reliefs sought is a declaration that she is entitled to a public hearing before any committee appointed by the President to investigate petitions for her removal.

The Chief Justice is also asking the Supreme Court to rule that the prima facie case allegedly established against her does not constitute a proper and lawful determination as required under the 1992 Constitution and should therefore be declared null, void, and of no effect.

Justice Torkornoo contends that her rights to a fair trial and due process have been violated and is requesting the court to overturn the President’s decision to suspend her from office.

This latest legal action follows her earlier filing of an interlocutory injunction seeking to halt the ongoing inquiry into petitions calling for her removal.

Below is a list of the 16 reliefs in the interlocutory injunction.

1. 1. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 17(1) and (2), 19(13) and (14), 146(7) and (8), 281(1) and 295(1) of the Constitution, a Chief Justice has the right to a public hearing in proceedings before a committee appointed by the President to inquire into a petition presented for the removal of the Chief Justice;
   2. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 17(1) and (2), 19(13) and (14), 23, 146(7) and (8), 281 (1) and 295(1) of the Constitution, the right of a Chief Justice to a public hearing and all the incidents of a fair hearing may only be excluded in the interest of public morality, public safety, or public order;
   3. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 17(1) and (2), 19(13) and (14), 23, 146(7) and (8), 281 (1) and 295(1) of the Constitution, a Chief Justice who is called upon to participate in a hearing conducted by a committee constituted under article 146(6) to inquire into the merits of a petition seeking the removal from office of the Chief Justice can waive the privilege of “in camera proceedings”.
   4. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 19(13), 23, 146(1), (2), (4) and (6) and 296 of the Constitution, a determination of a prima facie case in respect of a petition for the removal of a Chief Justice or a Justice of the Superior Court of Judicature is a quasi-judicial process requiring a judicious evaluation, culminating in a reasoned decision.
   5. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 19(13), 23, 146(1), (2), (4) and (6) and 296 of the Constitution, the purported prima facie finding in respect of three petitions presented for the removal of the Chief Justice and served on the Plaintiff by a letter dated 22^nd April, 2025, does not amount to a proper determination of a prima facie case and is therefore null, void and of no effect;
   6. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 19(13), 23, 146(1), (2), (4) and (6) and 296 of the Constitution, the purported finding by the President that a prima facie case has been made against the Plaintiff and served on the President by a letter dated 22^nd April, 2025, was arbitrary, capricious, in violation of the right of the Plaintiff to a fair trial, and therefore unconstitutional, void and of no effect;
   7. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 146(1), (2), (4), 125(3) and (4), 127(1) and (2) and 296 of the Constitution, the purported determination by the President that a prima facie case has been established against the Plaintiff as conveyed in the letter dated 22^nd April 2025, together with the warrant of suspension of the Plaintiff, constitute an unjustified attempt to remove the Plaintiff as Head of Ghana’s Judiciary and thus, an undue infringement on the independence of the Judiciary;
   8. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of article 146(6) and (7) of the Constitution, the failure to serve the Plaintiff with a judicious determination of a prima facie case before appointing a committee to purportedly inquire into the petitions for the removal of the Plaintiff as Chief Justice constitutes a violation of the Plaintiffs right to substantive administrative justice and fair hearing, rendering the entire proceedings initiated null and void;
   9. An order setting aside the warrant for suspension issued by the President dated 22^nd April, 2025, to suspend the Plaintiff as Chief Justice of the Republic;
   10. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 23, 146(6) and (7) and 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution, the 2^nd defendant, Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, is not qualified to be a chairman or member of the committee set up by the President to inquire into the petitions against the Plaintiff on account of having adjudicated and given various rulings in favour of one of the petitioners, Daniel Ofori in actions filed in the Supreme Court;
   11. An order prohibiting the 2^nd defendant, Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, from presiding as Chairman of the committee or participating in the proceedings of the committee set up to inquire into the petitions against the Plaintiff;
   12. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 23, 127(1) and (2), 146(6) and (7) and 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution, the appointment of the 3^rd defendant, Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, as a member of the committee set up by the President to inquire into the petitions against the Plaintiff, at a time when he had already sat as a member of a panel of the Supreme Court constituted under article 128(2) of the Constitution to hear an application for interlocutory injunction filed by a Ghanaian citizen challenging the “article 146 proceedings” initiated against the Plaintiff, violates the independence of the Judiciary;

1. An order prohibiting the 3^rd defendant, Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, from sitting as a member of or participating in the proceedings of the committee set up to inquire into the petitions against the Plaintiff;
2. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 146(1), (2), (4), 23 and 296 of the Constitution and sections 1, 2, and 4 of the Oaths Act, 1972, the 4^th, 5^th and 6^th defendants are not qualified to undertake the functions entrusted on them as members of the committee set up by the President to inquire into the petitions against the Plaintiff;
3. An order restraining the committee set up by the President to inquire into the three petitions against the Chief Justice composed of the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th and 6^th defendants from proceeding to carry out the terms of reference of the committee set up under article 146(6) as laid out in the letter dated 22^nd April, 2025;
4. Any other order(s) as to this Honourable Court may seem meet.

By: Ekow Annan/newsalertgh.com