The constitutional crisis triggered by the September 1, 2025, removal of former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo has intensified, culminating in a High Court legal action seeking to halt the parliamentary vetting and subsequent appointment of her nominated successor, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, and a parallel suit challenging the denial of her financial entitlements.
This unprecedented standoff, which tests the foundational principles of judicial independence against the constitutional mechanism for judicial accountability, currently disrupts the substantive administrative leadership of the country’s apex court, forcing a direct and high-stakes confrontation between the executive and the judiciary over the lawful succession and the administrative finality of the removal.
Genesis and Procedure of the Article 146 Inquiry
The constitutional crisis began in March 2025 with three separate citizen petitions submitted to the Presidency, invoking Article 146 of the Constitution to allege the specific removal ground of “stated misbehaviour” against Chief Justice Torkornoo. The central allegation, which led to the inquiry, centered on the misuse of public funds, specifically authorizing unlawful expenditures such as covering non-official travel expenses and per diems for her spouse and daughter.
Acting under Article 146, President John Mahama suspended the Chief Justice in April 2025 and appointed a five-member Committee of Inquiry. This committee was chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Pwamang. Although the Chief Justice challenged her suspension, the Supreme Court upheld the action in May 2025, ruling the matter moot.
The Committee subsequently submitted its first report on September 1, 2025, having only concluded its work on the petition filed by citizen Daniel Ofori. The removal was based solely on this single report’s finding that the ground of stated misbehaviour had been established. The Committee noted the comprehensive nature of the inquiry, which included hearing evidence from twenty-five witnesses (13 for the petitioner and 12 for the Chief Justice) and reviewing approximately ten thousand pages of documentary evidence.
Proceedings were held in camera, as required by the Constitution to safeguard reputations, but the Committee emphasized procedural transparency. The Committee’s Chair, Justice Gabriel Pwamang, publicly noted, “In camera proceedings are not the same as in secret,” addressing criticisms of opacity. Crucially, the removal was executed based on the findings of only one of the original complaints, as proceedings on the remaining two were temporarily adjourned. This marked the first time a sitting Ghanaian Chief Justice was removed through this constitutional procedure.
Reflecting on the process shortly before her removal, Justice Torkornoo publicly cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings, stating: “I have chosen to honour the process set in place to hear the petitions. But I do not choose to hide from the nation that the perversion of law, rules, and due process, as we all know it, are driving the proceedings and this renders the proceedings unconstitutional.”
Immediate Challenge to New Appointment and Withheld Entitlements
The crisis is now anchored by the former Chief Justice’s multi-pronged legal offensive. Her team has filed a new action at the High Court specifically seeking to block the parliamentary vetting process and quash all proceedings of the removal committee to declare the Presidential Warrant unlawful.
This constitutional challenge is reinforced by a separate High Court suit filed on October 16, 2025, which specifically challenges the unlawful withholding of her salary, benefits, and entitlements following her removal. This application demands the court set aside the committee’s findings and nullify the Presidential warrant, asserting her legal right to all lawful courtesies and benefits of her office up to the September 1 removal date.
She maintains her entitlement was unlawfully denied, and argues the committee’s conclusions were based on false or misleading grounds, citing that the contested expenditures were processed by duly designated Judicial Service officials and that her administrative decisions, such as judge transfers, were within her constitutional authority.
The former CJ has also filed a suit before the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice, alleging violations of her fundamental rights throughout the constitutional process and demanding ten million dollars in compensation for reputational damage. This international filing escalates the crisis, placing Ghana’s adherence to regional human rights standards under review.
The Legitimacy of the Challenge: Judicial Deference vs. Constitutional Finality
The latest legal actions have triggered a significant debate among legal and constitutional experts regarding the separation of powers and the finality of the constitutional removal process.
On the side of judicial deference, former Attorney General Nii Ayikoi Otoo urged the Executive and Legislature to “stay their hands” and respect the pendency of the matter before the court, arguing that the three arms of government must respect each other’s boundaries. Policy strategists, such as Oliver Barker-Vormawor, have also commended the former Chief Justice’s “courage” for choosing not to “walk away quietly,” stating that her persistence is “significant for Ghana’s democratic and constitutional development.”
Similarly, the Executive Director of the Media Foundation for West Africa, Sulemana Braimah, lauded her “resilience” and likened her challenge to the 2012 election petition, noting that even if unsuccessful, the process itself could “strengthen our legal system.”
However, this push for caution is strongly rebutted by legal experts who assert the finality of the Article 146 process. Former Director of the Ghana School of Law, Kwaku Ansa-Asare, firmly stated that the former Chief Justice “must realise that the seat of the Chief Justice is not a fixed traditional stool that the occupant can claim as a right.”
He argued that the constitutional process is complete, that she is “bound by the Constitution,” and that her challenge “holds no legal weight,” demonstrating “emotional imbalance and immaturity.” This view is echoed by the NDC’s former Director of Legal Affairs, Abraham Amaliba, who criticized Justice Torkornoo for becoming a “crybaby” who files repeated processes “meant just to stall the legal process.” This division highlights the fundamental clash over whether the constitutional process for removal is absolute or remains subject to judicial review.
Executive Defense and Jurisdictional Clash
The executive branch, led by President Mahama, maintains that the entire removal process was conducted strictly within the bounds of the 1992 Constitution. The government defends its position by citing Article 146, Clause 9, which mandates the President to “act in accordance with the recommendations of the committee,” arguing this provision removed discretionary power.
The government’s stance has been forcefully articulated by Deputy Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Dr. Justice Srem Sai, who defended the process as a victory for the rule of law and judicial accountability. He argued the Chief Justice should be held to the highest standard, confirming the government’s position by stating she “ought to have known better” regarding her conduct, given the gravity of her position. He has also confirmed that the Attorney General’s office is challenging the jurisdiction of the ECOWAS Court of Justice to hear Torkornoo’s ten million dollar suit, insisting the matter must be determined domestically.
This position has been met with sharp criticism from within the judiciary’s highest ranks. Former Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo publicly criticised the removal process as unnecessary and damaging, arguing that it has weakened the judiciary as an institution. She pointed to the constitutional ambiguity of “misbehaviour” and strongly stated that the allegations “lack the gravity that would lead to a grave outcome such as the removal of the head of an institution of justice.”
Professional and International Scrutiny
Beyond domestic political division, the removal faced sharp criticism from the broader legal community. The Ghana Bar Association (GBA), along with international bodies like the Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) and the Bar Council of England and Wales, raised significant concerns regarding due process and the potential erosion of judicial independence, even calling for the revocation of her earlier suspension.
The CLA stressed that, while respecting national sovereignty, they stood “unashamedly and fervently behind judicial independence,” and urged fidelity to international norms and the spirit of the Constitution. They issued a strong caution that “Political considerations, and particularly political interference, should have no place in this process,” reflecting the global view of the potential threat to the separation of powers.
Political Battle Lines and Precedent
The main opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) has expressed grave concerns, publicly questioning the removal and suggesting it is a clear example of executive overreach aimed at influencing the judiciary ahead of the upcoming political cycle. They view the process as an attack on judicial independence and a troubling political action against a Chief Justice appointed by the NPP rival administration.
Beyond the legal arguments, the entire affair has significantly undermined public trust, forcing a reckoning on whether the constitutional check was a necessary action against misconduct or a politically expedient executive overreach that threatens democratic institutional integrity. The legal battles will ultimately force the Supreme Court of Ghana to rule on the legality of a process intended to police and protect its own members. The final judgment will set a powerful and indelible precedent for the true security of tenure for all superior court judges and will redefine the delicate balance between judicial accountability and judicial independence in Ghana’s Fourth Republic.