The removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo is not only a historic first; it raises profound constitutional questions that go to the heart of separation of powers in Ghana. While Article 146 sets out a lawful process, the circumstances and implications demand careful scrutiny.
1. What precedent does this set?
The doctrine of separation of powers was designed to insulate each branch of government from overreach. Yet Ghana’s political history shows repeated attempts by the executive and dominant parties to expand their influence into the Judiciary and independent constitutional bodies. The removal of an Electoral Commission Chair in 2018, and now the Chief Justice, risks normalising the practice. The precedent is clear: constitutional offices once thought untouchable can be vacated mid-tenure. The effect will be to chill judicial independence, as future Chief Justices may weigh political repercussions alongside legal fidelity.
2. Was the committee constitution compromised?
Article 146(9) provides for a committee of inquiry, but questions linger about whether the composition in this case was beyond reproach. Critics point to possible conflicts of interest, for instance, former Auditor-General Daniel Domelevo, who himself challenged his removal, had a role that some argue compromised the perception of impartiality. Even if lawful, the appearance of bias can undermine confidence in the process. Judicial independence requires not only fairness but also the perception of fairness.
3. Does the ECOWAS Court matter?
The former Chief Justice has filed a case before the ECOWAS Court of Justice. While its rulings are binding on member states, enforcement has often been uneven. That said, a decision in her favour could expose Ghana to reputational damage internationally, particularly as a country long regarded as a democratic model in West Africa. The irony of a Chief Justice successfully challenging her own removal abroad would be politically costly, even if domestically the ruling is ignored.
4. What needs to change?
If Ghana is to avoid recurring controversy, reforms are needed:
- Clearer safeguards in the composition of Article 146 committees, excluding anyone with potential conflicts.
- Independent vetting mechanisms, perhaps involving the Judicial Council or the Ghana Bar Association, to bolster credibility.
- Transparent reporting: findings should be publicly accessible to ensure accountability.
- Cultural restraint: constitutional powers must be exercised sparingly, with political actors recognising that the Judiciary’s stability is a national interest, not a partisan one.
The removal of a Chief Justice may be constitutionally valid, but it must also pass the higher test of legitimacy in the eyes of citizens. Unless reforms are pursued, Ghana risks sliding into a pattern where judicial heads are treated as political appointments rather than constitutional guardians.
That is the real slippery slope, and it will determine the strength of our democracy for decades to come.
