Former Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo has filed a formal reply at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice in Abuja, contesting the government’s defence in her case challenging her removal from office.
In her submission, Torkornoo disputes claims by the Attorney General that proper procedures were followed in handling three petitions against her in 2025. She argues that the President and the Committee investigating the petitions failed to provide her with copies of the alleged prima facie determinations before acting, in breach of Article 146 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.
The former Chief Justice contends that the inquiry panel only partially heard one petition, adjourned the remaining two without notice, and submitted its report to the President while denying her the opportunity to submit or adopt written responses. She describes the hearings as “a charade,” citing the lack of cross examination and withholding of vital documents.
Torkornoo also challenged the composition of the panel, noting that Justices Gabriel Pwamang and Samuel Adibu Asiedu had previously adjudicated cases related to the petitions. She said their involvement violated the principle of nemo judex in causa sua, meaning no one should judge a case in which they have a personal interest.
Her filing further rejects the government’s assertion that she leaked petitions or influenced related Supreme Court cases, and calls into question the validity of the President’s warrant of suspension issued on April 22, 2025.
Torkornoo is seeking recognition of procedural violations, restoration of entitlements, and compensation for reputational, financial, and professional harm. The filing was prepared by prominent Nigerian human rights lawyers Femi and Funmi Falana and their team.
The former Chief Justice has argued that her removal without due process threatens judicial independence and undermines public confidence in Ghana’s judiciary.
The Attorney General had mounted a strong defence for the President and the Council of State indicating that they were not required to issue a reasoned legal opinion when making a prima facie determination on petitions seeking the removal of Justice Torkornoo.
Deputy Attorney General Justice Srem Sai argued that a prima facie determination under Article 146 of the Constitution is a policy decision, not a judicial one, and is therefore not subject to judicial review. He said the absence of a constitutional instrument to guide the process does not invalidate the President’s actions.
The case at the ECOWAS Court has already produced significant preliminary rulings. In November 2025, the regional court dismissed Ghana’s preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction to hear the matter. The three judge panel ruled that the court has competence to adjudicate alleged human rights violations even when related constitutional issues have been decided by national courts.
The ECOWAS Court held that Torkornoo had established a prima facie case of human rights violations and gave Ghana 30 days to file its defence to the substantive case. However, the court also dismissed Torkornoo’s application for provisional measures seeking to halt the committee’s work, ruling she failed to demonstrate urgency or imminent irreparable harm.
The judges noted that three months elapsed between May 15, when the Article 146 committee began work, and July 4, when Torkornoo filed her ECOWAS action. This time gap defeated her urgency argument according to the November 19 ruling.
Nii Ayikoi Otoo, lead counsel for Torkornoo, subsequently accused Deputy Attorney General Srem Sai of misrepresenting the November ruling’s significance. Otoo said Srem Sai’s public comments created a false impression that government had secured a favourable decision, even though the regional court insisted Ghana must now file its defence.
“It is most unfortunate,” Otoo said on The Forum on Asaase Radio on November 22. “You don’t expect somebody holding a very high office to be dabbling in such matters to create the impression that they’ve gotten what they wanted and that their position has been upheld. That was not what happened.”
The case stems from three petitions submitted to President John Mahama in March 2025 seeking Torkornoo’s removal. The petitions came from businessman Daniel Ofori, a group called Shining Stars, and police official Ayamga Yakubu Akolgo. They alleged various forms of misconduct including abuse of power over judicial staff transfers and dismissals, and misuse of public funds for family vacations.
President Mahama suspended Torkornoo on April 22, 2025, after the Council of State determined a prima facie case existed. He appointed a five member committee chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Pwamang to investigate the allegations.
The suspension marked the first time in Ghana’s history that a sitting Chief Justice had been removed from office during active service. Torkornoo, appointed by former President Nana Akufo Addo in June 2023, was Ghana’s third female Chief Justice and the 15th overall.
Between April 16 and 29, 2025, various groups including the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) held press conferences and protests calling for revocation of the suspension. Torkornoo herself held a June 25 press conference warning the removal process would affect how all current and future judicial officers might be removed from office.
“The second reason for making this statement is that though I am in the process alone, its effects ripple far beyond me as a person,” she said at the Accra press conference. “This process will affect how all High Court Justices, Justices of the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court Justices and all Chief Justices that will be appointed in the future may be removed from office.”
Torkornoo challenged the proceedings in Ghana’s Supreme Court, arguing her suspension was unconstitutional because the April 22 letter from President Mahama’s office did not constitute a valid determination of a prima facie case. She claimed such determination required a judicious evaluation that would result in a reasoned decision.
In Vincent Ekow Assafuah versus The Attorney General, the Supreme Court upheld the suspension in a 3 to 2 majority decision, reasoning that the action had become moot. The dismissal prompted Torkornoo to file at the ECOWAS Court on July 4, 2025.
The Pwamang committee heard the petition filed by Daniel Ofori and submitted its first report on September 1, 2025. According to government statements, the committee heard evidence from 13 witnesses on behalf of petitioner Ofori. Torkornoo, who testified and was cross examined, called 12 witnesses including experts.
Hours after receiving the report, President Mahama removed Torkornoo from office effective immediately. “After considering the petition and the evidence, the Committee found that the grounds of stated misbehaviour under Article 146 (1) had been established and recommended her removal from office,” the Presidency statement said.
The committee concluded Torkornoo authorized unlawful expenditures including travel expenses and per diems for her spouse and daughter through the judicial service. The committee determined such actions constituted misuse of public funds falling under grounds for removal defined in Article 146(1) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.
Justice Paul Baffoe Bonnie, the most senior judge on the Supreme Court, assumed acting Chief Justice duties following Torkornoo’s suspension. He remains in that position following her removal.
Former Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo, now a Council of State member, stated in a September 3 interview that the removal process was unnecessary and weakened the judiciary as an institution. In contrast, Deputy Attorney General Srem Sai defended the process as constitutional and legitimate, asserting Ghanaians must decide standards for public official conduct.
Presidential spokesperson Felix Kwakye Ofosu emphasized that the rule of law requires accountability from everyone regardless of societal standing, and that any society unable to do that cannot call itself governed by rule of law.
At the ECOWAS Court, Torkornoo is seeking 10 reliefs including declarations that her suspension violated her human rights to fair hearing, dignity, and work under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. She is also seeking 10 million dollars compensation for moral and reputational damages.
The application argues that “fairness implies that the President, in making the prima facie determination with the Council of State, must specify the particular charges in respect of which a prima facie case is deemed to have been established and the reasons for the same.”
Torkornoo contends that to date, she does not know the reasons for the President stating that a prima facie case was established against her. “Yet a committee has been formed and is working. The President’s purported prima facie determination was no determination at all, as it failed to meet the standard of a judicious and objective assessment and, as such, was arbitrary and capricious,” the application states.
The case has sparked broader debate about judicial independence, separation of powers, and constitutional interpretation in Ghana. NPP spokesperson Yaw Opoku Mensah warned Saturday that Ghana faces dangerous executive overreach, calling for independent legal experts to defend constitutional governance principles.
“We are in a democracy; we voted for President Mahama under a functional constitution,” Mensah said on The Forum on Asaase Radio. “Now you ask yourself what the legal status of those three arms of government in terms of understanding what separation of powers means.”
Legal observers note that Article 146 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution outlines the procedure for removing Justices of Superior Courts but leaves significant room for discretion in interpreting grounds for removal. The constitutional provisions lack detailed implementing regulations, creating ambiguity about fair hearing requirements and prima facie determination standards.
The absence of a constitutional instrument guiding the process has been a point of contention throughout the case. While the government argues this absence does not invalidate presidential actions, Torkornoo and her legal team contend it creates unpredictability that violates rule of law principles requiring laws to be clear and ascertainable.
The ECOWAS Court’s handling of this high profile case will be closely watched as it could set significant precedents for accountability of high ranking state officials and application of regional human rights instruments across West Africa. The court has previously ruled both for and against governments in member states, demonstrating independence from political pressures.
Whether the ECOWAS Court will grant reliefs that Ghana’s Supreme Court rejected remains to be seen. The regional court’s jurisdiction over human rights violations gives it authority to examine procedural fairness issues even when national courts have ruled on related constitutional matters.
Ghana’s response to Torkornoo’s latest filing is expected within the timeframe set by the ECOWAS Court. The substantive hearing will likely occur in 2026, with implications extending far beyond the individuals involved to fundamental questions about judicial independence and constitutional governance in Ghana and across West Africa.