The suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo by President John Dramani Mahama on April 22 has sent Ghana into constitutional overdrive. With a Supreme Court hearing already scheduled for May 6 to determine the legality of the suspension process, the issue now is no longer just whether the President acted within Article 146, but whether the fundamental rights of the Chief Justice were bypassed in the haste to act.
At the core of this legal debate is the failure to offer the Chief Justice an opportunity to respond to the petition before the matter was referred to the Council of State. This procedural omission is not trivial; it strikes at the heart of natural justice. The Supreme Court has been clear in Agyei-Twum v Attorney-General & Akwetey (2005-2006) SCGLR 732 that any judge who is the subject of a removal petition must be afforded the right to respond before any further steps are taken. Failure to do so renders the entire process legally defective and susceptible to being quashed.
The other side can absolutely file an application, either as a motion on notice or an interlocutory injunction at the Supreme Court, seeking to restrain the disciplinary committee or any further action (like the panel President Mahama is forming) until the May 6 hearing is concluded. This would be on the grounds that the constitutionality of the President’s actions is currently sub judice, and any further steps could prejudice the case before the Supreme Court.
Legal teams challenging the President’s action are likely to file an interim injunction in the coming days, seeking to restrain any investigative committee or further administrative action until the Supreme Court has ruled. If granted, this injunction would compel the President and his team to hold off until May 6. Should the President defy such a directive from the apex court, it would plunge the country into a constitutional crisis, pitting the executive directly against the judiciary.
What Happens If This Is Filed:
1. If Supreme Court grants an injunction or stay:
Then the President is constitutionally bound to comply, and any further action would be in contempt of court. This would include halting the disciplinary process or deferring the implementation of the suspension.
2. If the President ignores the injunction or stay (hypothetical):
It would lead to a constitutional crisis and risk setting a dangerous precedent. The Supreme Court could issue a directive, and if still ignored, it might trigger parliamentary action or be used in future impeachment proceedings. Public confidence in rule of law and judicial independence would be deeply shaken.
This standoff does not exist in a vacuum. There are echoes of past tensions, particularly the Chief Justice’s own decision to greenlight judicial intervention in parliamentary matters last year. That decision, heavily criticised at the time, was seen by some as a step too far into the legislative domain. Today, that precedent may have come full circle, inviting executive incursion into the judiciary itself.
If the President does not comply with a potential Supreme Court order to stay further action, it would not only constitute contempt, but undermine the authority of the judiciary and set a precedent that future governments may exploit. Ghana’s legal architecture depends on checks and balances, and on the belief that no branch of government is above the Constitution.
As the May 6 date approaches, the stakes are not just about the future of Chief Justice Torkornoo. They are about whether the legal system can stand firm when political power leans hard against it, and whether we still believe in the rule of law when it is most inconvenient.
