The founder of MountCrest University College and former Director of the Ghana School of Law, Mr Kwaku Ansa-Asare, has declared the removal of former Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo from her position as a Supreme Court Justice to be without legal foundation.
Speaking at the 8th congregation of the Ghana School of Law, which saw the graduation of 137 students, Mr Ansa-Asare cautioned the government against setting a dangerous precedent with this decision.
He argued that the constitutional process, as outlined in Article 146 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, only provided for her removal as Chief Justice, not from her substantive role as a Justice of the Supreme Court.
The legal framework allows for a Chief Justice to be removed for “stated misbehaviour or incompetence”, but Mr Ansa-Asare believes this process does not automatically strip a Justice of their membership on the apex court.
“I think that we administered common law rules, obedience of equitable principles. Our law insists not only on common law rules but also on equitable principles,” he stated, referring to Articles 11(1)(e) and 11(2) of the Constitution, which he said underscore the importance of equity in Ghana’s legal system.
Mr Ansa-Asare urged the government to honourably retire Justice Torkornoo and provide her with all her entitlements, rather than remove her.
Her removal from the Supreme Court, he warned, would set a bad precedent for the judiciary and could be perceived as a politically motivated attack on judicial independence.
Under the Constitution, Supreme Court Justices are required to retire at the age of 70, with an option to retire voluntarily at age 60.
Justice Torkornoo, who was appointed as Chief Justice on June 12, 2023, and was removed from office on September 1, 2025, has not reached the mandatory retirement age.
He reiterated his position: “My advice is that the former chief justice be formally retired as a justice of the Supreme Court so that she can take a hard-earned entitlement.”
Justice Torkornoo’s removal followed petitions alleging that she misused public funds by authorising unlawful expenditures, including covering travel expenses for her spouse and daughter through the Judicial Service.
A committee, constituted under Article 146(6), investigated the petition and recommended her removal for “misbehaviour”, a recommendation that President John Dramani Mahama was constitutionally bound to act on under Article 146(9).
However, critics like Mr Ansa-Asare are now questioning whether the scope of the committee’s recommendation and the subsequent presidential action can extend to her removal from the Supreme Court itself, given that the petition was specifically for her removal as Chief Justice.
The debate highlights the intricate and sometimes ambiguous nature of Ghana’s constitutional provisions, sparking a wider conversation about judicial independence and the standards of conduct for high-ranking public officials.