In an precedented move, President John Dramani Mahama has officially removed Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo from office, invoking Article 146(9) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution following a committee’s findings of “stated misbehaviour”
Following the announcement, many legal luminaries have confirmed the constitutional validity of the procedures. The committee of enquiry, chaired by Justice Pwamang, indicates that they thoroughly scrutinized over 10,000 pages and interrogated numerous witnesses presented by the accusers and the accused before arriving at their recommendation for Justice Torkornoo’s removal.
Given the novelty of this development, many are asking its broader implications and ripples it can exert on Ghana’s economy and investor sentiments.
Constitutionality: Procedural Validity, But Lingering Doubts
Law scholars explain that Ghana’s legal framework mandates the President to act on the committee’s recommendation. A five-member Article 146 committee reviewed three petitions and, after interviewing witnesses and examining extensive documentation, concluded that dismissal was warranted.
Law lecturers such as Prof. Kwame Tua-Yeboah and Mr. Ansah Asare agree that the process itself adheres to constitutional provisions.
Yet legal scholars and former officials warn of erosion in judicial independence. Alfred Tuah-Yeboah, ex-Deputy Attorney General, described the removal as “an unholy assault on the independence of the judiciary,” warning it may set a dangerous precedent.
This implies that there is a divided stance on the issue. While the constitutionality of the processes is generally accepted, other analysts believe the it was politically motivated and hence was tainted with prejudice.
Investor Perspective: Legal Formality vs Political Risk
On one leg, the removal reflects adherence to constitutional mechanisms, which can somewhat reassure sovereign and institutional investors of the rule of law in Ghana, a factor cherished by investors. On the other leg, it can also illustrate that Ghana’s judiciary is not untouchable, even its most senior office holders, if allegations are substantiated.
In this sense, investors may view the event as a test of institutional resilience and rule-based accountability.
The Risk of Politicization
However, the lack of public detail on the allegations, the closed-door inquiry, and Torkornoo’s own claims of procedural unfairness point to troubling opacity. A recent article on Democracy in Africa argues that the event raises fundamental questions on whether Ghana’s democratic institutions can survive without transparency, especially when a Chief Justice is removed under politically sensitive circumstances.
Opacity and transparency matter immensely to markets. For foreign investors evaluating Ghana’s political risk, the manner of removal could signal interference, not independence, and raises doubts about the separation of powers.
The Bottomline
While the removal of the Chief Justice is generally agreed to have followed constitutional procedure, the opacity and political undertones risk unsettling investor confidence.
It is expected that the markets will watch closely how the government manages transparency, appoints a successor, and addresses concerns over judicial independence.
