The Office of the Attorney General (AG) has strongly opposed an interlocutory injunction filed by the Centre for Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems (CenCES), describing it as speculative, frivolous, and an abuse of the judicial process.
The injunction seeks to halt the ongoing procedures initiated by President John Mahama that led to the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo.
In an affidavit opposing the application, the AG argued that CenCES’s claims were not only lacking in legal merit but also contained elements that breached constitutional provisions. The AG further called for the dismissal of the motion, citing both procedural and substantive flaws in the applicant’s case.
CenCES, a civil society group registered as a limited guarantee company, has brought a legal action against the Attorney General (1st Respondent), Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo (2nd Respondent), and Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang (3rd Respondent), who chairs the investigative committee set up to probe the Chief Justice.
The group contends that the President’s response to three separate petitions seeking the Chief Justice’s removal did not comply with the procedural requirements of the 1992 Constitution.
They claim the process lacked transparency, violated principles of fair hearing and due process, and breached constitutional safeguards under Articles 17(1)-(3), 23, 296, and 146(1)-(6).
According to CenCES, the suspension was arbitrary and failed to meet the constitutional threshold for establishing a prima facie case as required before initiating proceedings for the removal of a sitting Chief Justice.
In its response, however, the AG argued that several portions of the applicant’s affidavit should be struck out. The AG identified paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, and 26 as containing inadmissible or prejudicial content, citing the following reasons:
The paragraphs include references to in-camera proceedings, which, according to the AG, are protected by constitutional confidentiality.
The materials referenced are unauthenticated and therefore inadmissible.
Even if considered, their potential evidential value is outweighed by the prejudicial effect they could have on the ongoing inquiry into the Chief Justice’s conduct.
The content is speculative and lacks legal substance, amounting to an abuse of the court’s processes.
The AG urged the Supreme Court to reject the application for injunction and allow the proceedings of the investigative committee to continue unimpeded while the substantive case is determined.
Find attached AG’s affidavit in opposition to the interlocutory injunction:
