The Supreme Court has, by a 4–1 majority decision, dismissed a legal challenge brought by the Centre for Citizenship, Constitutional and Electoral Systems (CenCES) against the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo by President John Mahama.
CenCES, a civil society group, sought to invalidate the President’s action and halt the proceedings of a committee tasked with determining whether the Chief Justice should be removed from office.
The five-member Supreme Court panel, chaired by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, ruled in favour of the state. The other members included Justices Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, Yonny Kulendi, Henry Anthony Kwofie, and Yaw Asare Darko. Justice Asare Darko was the only dissenting voice in the decision.
CenCES argued that the President’s decision to suspend the Chief Justice and initiate a removal process through a five-member investigative committee violated the 1992 Constitution.
According to the group, key provisions protecting judicial independence and due process were breached.
In its suit, filed on May 15, 2025, CenCES named the Attorney General as the first respondent, the Chief Justice as the second, and Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang—chair of the investigative committee—as the third respondent.
Among seven reliefs sought, CenCES asked the apex court to declare the Chief Justice’s suspension unconstitutional, citing Articles 125 and 127, which affirm the independence of the judiciary.
The group further claimed that the President’s establishment of the removal committee lacked the legal foundation required by Article 146, which mandates a properly established prima facie case before such action.
CenCES also requested the court to halt all proceedings of the investigative committee and bar the Chief Justice from any involvement in the case, citing a potential conflict of interest. They described the President’s move as an act of executive overreach that threatened constitutional safeguards.
Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court upheld the President’s decision, allowing the committee to proceed with its mandate.
Meanwhile, the Court has scheduled a hearing for a separate but related case filed by private citizen Theodore Kofi Atta-Quartey.
In his application, Atta-Quartey is also seeking to halt the committee’s work and has requested an interlocutory injunction to freeze proceedings until his suit is heard and determined.
