Reports circulating in sections of the media suggest that former Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo has resigned from Ghana’s Council of State. Although neither the Presidency nor the Council of State has issued any official confirmation, there are accounts indicating that the resignation may have been submitted towards the end of last year, 2025. If this is accurate, it would mean the development has been sitting quietly for several months without public acknowledgement.
Some reports further link the reported decision to developments surrounding the Council of State’s advisory role in the processes leading to the removal proceedings involving the immediate past Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, following the establishment of a prima facie case against her. It has also been suggested that she ceased attending Council meetings after those developments. Although these details remain unverified, they form part of the emerging narrative that has shaped public interest in the matter.
The Council of State and its Constitutional Role
The Council of State is a constitutional body established under article 89 of the 1992 Constitution to assist the President and other relevant authorities in the exercise of their functions. It does not exercise executive authority, nor does it issue binding directives. Its role is advisory in nature, intended to provide institutional memory, experience, and perspective on matters referred to it within the governance framework.
Its composition reflects this constitutional design. Under article 89, it includes persons who have previously held high constitutional offices such as Chief Justice, Chief of Defence Staff, and Inspector General of Police. It also includes the President of the National House of Chiefs, representatives elected from the regions through a special electoral college, and eleven members appointed by the President.
The Supreme Court has, in decisions such as Ghana Bar Association v Attorney-General and Judicial Council and Noble Kor v Attorney-General, underscored the constitutional importance of consultation within advisory frameworks. While the advice of bodies such as the Council of State is not binding on the President, the requirement of consultation where prescribed by the Constitution is not treated as a mere formality, but as part of the constitutional architecture that legitimises executive action.
Resignation and Cessation of Membership Under Article 89
The resignation and cessation of membership of the Council of State are governed by article 89(5) and (6) of the Constitution, which set out specific circumstances under which a member ceases to hold office. These include resignation, death, permanent incapacity, removal in accordance with constitutional procedure, and termination in prescribed situations.
Resignation is stated in clear and direct terms. A member ceases to hold office upon resignation by writing, signed by that member, and addressed to the President. The constitutional provision does not attach conditions of acceptance, approval, or confirmation by any authority.
This formulation is legally significant. It means that, once a properly signed resignation letter is addressed to the President, the constitutional requirement is satisfied and the cessation of office follows as a matter of law.
If the reported resignation of the former Chief Justice is accurate and the constitutional form was complied with, then her membership of the Council would have ended from the moment the resignation letter was duly signed and addressed to the President, regardless of whether an official public announcement was made at the time.
From a practical standpoint, this would also mean that the composition of the Council has, for a period, operated without a member occupying the slot reserved for a person who has previously held the office of Chief Justice. In constitutional design terms, that is not a personal vacancy alone, but an institutional gap within the Council’s structure.
Institutional Character of the Seat
The significance of that seat lies in its institutional nature. The position occupied by a former Chief Justice on the Council of State is not merely personal representation; it is a constitutional channel through which judicial experience is embedded within executive advisory processes.
In that sense, the office is less about the individual and more about the continuity of institutional insight within the Council. If a vacancy arises in that category, the constitutional expectation is that it must be filled by another person who has previously held the office of Chief Justice, in order to preserve the structure designed under article 89.
The effect is therefore not simply that a member exits the Council, but that an institutional voice is temporarily absent from its deliberations until a replacement is appointed.
Meetings and Practical Functioning of the Council
Under article 92 of the Constitution, the Council of State is required to meet at least four times in a year, which in practice translates into at least one meeting per quarter, although additional meetings may be convened when requested by the President, Parliament, or at least five members of the Council.
If the reported timeline is accurate, it would suggest that the Council may have held meetings within this period without the participation of the former Chief Justice in question, assuming her resignation had already taken effect at the time.
While the Council operates largely in private, its meeting structure reinforces its continuing role within the constitutional system, even when its work is not visible in the public space. Like a chamber that influences decisions behind closed doors, its relevance is often felt more in constitutional outcomes than in public proceedings.
A Call For Action
At present, the reported resignation of former Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo remains unconfirmed by official sources, and therefore sits within the space between public report and institutional acknowledgment.
What is clear, however, is the constitutional position. If a resignation was submitted in the manner prescribed by rticle 89, then the legal effect does not depend on acceptance or announcement, but on compliance with the constitutional form itself.
Given the constitutional significance of the Council of State and the specific institutional role attached to membership categories such as former Chief Justices, it would be appropriate for the relevant authorities, particularly the Presidency or the Council of State itself, to formally clarify the status of the reported resignation. Where a vacancy exists or has arisen, steps may also need to be taken to ensure that the constitutional composition of the Council is fully maintained, not merely in numbers but in the institutional voices the framers of the Constitution deliberately embedded within it.
It is no coincidence that the Constitution requires representation from persons who have held the office of Chief Justice. That requirement reflects a deliberate design choice to ensure that the highest judicial experience continues to inform executive counsel at the level of the state’s advisory compass. Ensuring continuity in that institutional voice is therefore not just a matter of procedure, but of constitutional balance.
