On April 2, the Supreme Court will consider a motion for an injunction against the procedures to remove the CJ.

After receiving three petitions, Vincent Assafuah, a member of parliament for Old Tafo with the New Patriotic Party (NPP), filed an application for an injunction against the process the President was using to possibly remove the Chief Justice from office. The Supreme Court has scheduled the hearing for April 2, 2025.
This ruling follows Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo’s letter to the President, in which she copied other interested parties, requesting copies of the three petitions that sought her removal from office.

Shortly after the Old Tafo MP filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court challenging the process being followed to handle the petitions, the CJ made the request.

The plaintiff, who is being represented by former Attorney-General Godfred Dame, believes that before the President consults the Council of State on the petitions, a Chief Justice should be informed of them and asked to respond.

In accordance with Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, Minister for Government Communications, attested that the three petitions had been sent to the Council of State.

The process is the first step in a constitutional procedure that might result in major changes to Ghana’s courts, even if the precise grounds for the petitions are still unknown.

It is anticipated that the Council of State will examine the petitions and advise the President on the best course of action.

Chief Justice Torkornoo wrote to the President on Thursday, March 27, asking for a fair chance to address the accusations against her before taking any further action.

“With this letter, I respectfully and humbly request that His Excellency the President and distinguished members of the Council of State forward the petitions against me to me. At least seven days after receiving them, I will respond to you. This response may then be included in the materials you use to conduct the consultations required under Article 146(6), prior to the potential formation of a Committee of Inquiry under Article 146(7),” she said.

In accordance with Article 2(1)(b) of the 1992 Constitution, Assafuah, acting as a concerned citizen, requests a number of rulings from the Supreme Court, whose original jurisdiction he is utilising, concerning the interpretation of constitutional clauses pertaining to the dismissal of a Chief Justice.

The lawsuit contends that before consulting the Council of State on the issue, the President must first notify the Chief Justice and solicit the Chief Justice’s input.

Reliefs sought by the plaintiff

The plaintiff asks the court to rule that, in accordance with Articles 146(1), (2), (4), (6), and (7), 23, 57(3), and 296 of the Constitution, the President must consult the Chief Justice and get their input prior to sending a removal petition to the Council of State.

Article 146(6) is violated and the constitutional protection of the Chief Justice’s tenure security is compromised if the Chief Justice is not notified prior to the start of the consultation procedure with the Council of State.

Any omission in this procedure violates Articles 127(1) and (2) of the Constitution by unjustly interfering with the judiciary’s independence.

The consultation procedure is unlawful because the President violated the right to a fair hearing by not getting the Chief Justice’s input before initiating the removal process any additional remedies the court deems suitable.