Former Attorney General and counsel for the removed Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo, has accused the committee that recommended her dismissal of ignoring key evidence, including the judiciary’s own travel policy.
Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Monday, Ayikoi Otoo said the committee failed to consider the official travel policy that was tendered as part of her defence.
According to him, the Chief Justice had done nothing wrong by requesting to go on a regular vacation in line with her entitlements.
“When these entitlements come, it is not for you to determine anything. You are just to determine whether you want to travel. So when you tell them that I intend to take my vacation in Arusha, Tanzania, then the officers will work on whatever is your entitlement and bring it to you.
“This is nothing new. As Attorney General, as an ambassador, that is what they do. They work out and bring it to you. You are not involved. So it is for them to look at the policy.”
Mr. Otoo stressed that the Chief Justice did not personally determine or allocate travel allowances but simply relied on the established procedure.
“What is the policy? Are you entitled to per diem? They will tell you yes, you are entitled to per diem. If you are travelling with somebody, is that person also entitled to some per diem? They say yes, and so they are working and bringing it to you.”
He argued that the committee’s findings overlooked the fact that previous Chief Justices had also travelled with a person of their choice when they had no spouse.
“There is a travel policy of the judiciary, but they never referred to it. And that travel policy, the committee didn’t refer to it, although we tendered it. Look, this is the travel policy. She’s entitled to travel with one person of her own choice, and she chose to do this.
“Remember that there have been other Chief Justices, some of them who had no spouses, and, therefore, the law, as at the time, was that you could go with no, if it’s not your spouse, any person of your own choice.”
Defending Justice Torkornoo further, Mr. Otoo dismissed suggestions of misappropriation.
“What wrong did the Chief Justice commit? Was she the one who asked that she should be given travel expenses? Is she not entitled to the travel expenses? And as I keep asking, when you are in that office and you have to travel, is it for you to determine I want this or that? It is for the organisation to work it and give it to you.”
He questioned why the Chief Justice was removed without any audit process establishing wrongdoing.
“Assuming it was wrongly given to you, is that not why you have an audit? Is it not the case for auditors to say that we think you should be surcharged with a certain amount which you took unlawfully?
“Is it a ground for removal? Are you the spending officer, when the letters were actually even management letters and whatever were sent to the Judicial Secretary, who is a spending officer, and no wrongdoing, no surcharge?”
Mr. Otoo expressed shock that despite his submissions, the committee still concluded that Justice Torkornoo had engaged in misappropriation.
“I’m surprised Domelevo was on it. He sat through it. He heard us. We made presentations to him. And he, in the midst of all this, in the face of all this, comes out to say that she has misappropriated money. Which money?”