Former CJ Gertrude Torkornoo challenges her removal in court as she seeks to have the President’s actions declared unconstitutional and void. Justice Torkornoo maintains that while the President may remove a chief justice by warrant, that authority does not extend to stripping her of her role as a justice of the Supreme Court without the procedure set out in Article 146 of the Constitution.
Background to the Warrant of Removal
On 1 September 2025, the President signed a warrant removing Gertrude Torkornoo from office. That single document purported to terminate her service both as Chief Justice and as a justice of the Superior Court of Judicature. Since the Chief Justice role is separate from a Supreme Court judgeship, Torkornoo contends that the warrant exceeded executive power and violated constitutional safeguards.
Under Article 146, a justice of the Superior Court may only be removed for stated grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity after an address supported by two thirds of Parliament. A tribunal must also investigate and report on the matter. No such process was followed in Torkornoo’s case.
The Reliefs Sought
In her petition to the Supreme Court, Torkornoo asks for several declarations and orders:
- Declaration of Lack of Power
That the President has no power to remove a justice of the Superior Court without resort to the mandatory removal procedure in Article 146. - Declaration on Jurisdiction
That only a properly constituted tribunal under Article 146(4) can hear a petition to remove a justice of the Superior Court. - Declaration of Invalid Warrant
That the warrant dated 1 September 2025 removing her from both offices is unlawful, null, void and of no effect. - Order of Certiorari
To quash the warrant of removal and any related executive acts in violation of the Constitution. - Further Orders
Such other reliefs as the court may find appropriate, including possibly restoring her status, back pay and other consequential orders.
Constitutional and Legal Context
The 1992 Constitution of Ghana establishes the judiciary as an independent branch. Article 146 protects superior court judges against arbitrary removal. It requires:
- A formal petition by the Chief Justice, Attorney-General or a member of Parliament.
- Support of at least two thirds of all MPs.
- Establishment of a tribunal of at least five members, including Supreme Court justices, Court of Appeal judges and persons qualified to be Supreme Court justices.
- A tribunal report and parliamentary address before the President may issue a removal warrant.
These steps ensure that judges cannot be dismissed for political reasons or to undermine judicial independence. By bypassing this process, the petitioners argue, the executive has breached the fundamental principle of separation of powers.
Timeline of Events
- Mid-2025: Rumours circulate of disagreements between the President and Chief Justice Torkornoo over court administration.
- 1 September 2025: President issues a single warrant removing Torkornoo from both offices.
- Early September 2025: Notices appear in the Gazette effecting the removal. Torkornoo ceases to act in either capacity.
- Late September 2025: Torkornoo files her petition in the Supreme Court, seeking to have the warrant and its effects declared unconstitutional.
Expert Commentary
Legal scholars emphasise that Torkornoo’s challenge may set a key precedent on executive-judicial relations. Professor Ama Awuah of the University of Ghana notes that “upholding the removal warrant without proper procedure would gravely weaken judicial independence and could expose judges to capricious dismissal by successive administrations.”
Barrister Kofi Mensah argues that the remedy will hinge on the court’s willingness to assert its constitutional role and reinforce the checks and balances. “The Supreme Court must guard against executive overreach. If the warrant is not quashed, future chief justices and judges may face removal without due process.”
Implications for the Judiciary and Governance
Should the court rule in Torkornoo’s favour, it would:
- Reaffirm Article 146 protections for Supreme Court and other superior court judges.
- Prevent the executive from using a single warrant to remove multiple offices.
- Mandate clear separation between administrative roles and judicial appointments.
A decision upholding the warrant could:
- Erode public confidence in the rule of law.
- Weaken the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power.
- Invite further litigation on other constitutional offices.
Next Steps
The Supreme Court has yet to fix a hearing date. Torkornoo’s counsel will present arguments on the warrant’s invalidity, citing constitutional text, legislative history and comparative jurisprudence. The Attorney-General’s office will defend the executive action, likely arguing for implied powers under the Constitution and practical necessity.
Observers expect a full-bench panel to hear the case, given its national importance. A judgment could take several months, but interim orders may be sought to prevent any further diminution of judicial office holders.
