The Human Rights Division 1 of the High Court has struck out a judicial review application filed by suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo, ruling that the case amounted to an abuse of court process and was brought before a court lacking jurisdiction.
The application, filed on June 9, 2025, challenged the legality and constitutionality of the impeachment proceedings initiated under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, which the Chief Justice argued violated her fundamental human rights.
However, in a ruling delivered today in the absence of both the applicant and the respondent, the court, presided over by Justice John Bosco Nabarese, found the claims improperly grounded and legally unsustainable.
Deputy Attorney General, Justice Srem Sai, represented the state, while Kwabena Adu-Kusi appeared for the Chief Justice.
Challenge to Deposition Dismissed
A significant aspect of the proceedings involved an objection raised by the Chief Justice’s legal team regarding the affidavit in opposition filed by Reginald Odoi on behalf of multiple applicants.
The objection specifically targeted paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the affidavit, describing them as incompetent, frivolous, and filed without the necessary consent of the applicants.
It was further argued that Odoi had not cited any legal basis for representing all applicants.
The court, however, dismissed the objection. It held that there was no evidence on record of any disclaimer or protest from the applicants denying Odoi the authority to act on their behalf.
In the absence of such evidence, the court presumed consent had been granted and allowed the affidavit to stand.
Application Deemed Abuse of Court Process
In addressing the core of the matter, the court ruled that most of the reliefs and legal grounds cited by the suspended Chief Justice had either already been determined by the Supreme Court or were currently pending before it. These included Reliefs 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, along with grounds I, III, and IV. According to the court, revisiting those issues in the High Court was a clear duplication and constituted an abuse of judicial process.
Only reliefs 1, 4, and 8, and ground II, which relates to the right to be heard (the audi alteram partem principle), were not directly before the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, the High Court held that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate matters arising from the in camera proceedings of the Article 146 Committee, or to interpret Article 146(8).
The judge reiterated that lower courts are bound by the rulings of the Supreme Court and emphasized that the proper forum for constitutional interpretation lies exclusively with the apex court.
Entire Case Struck Out
Given the overlap with pending matters at the Supreme Court and the constitutional limitations placed on the High Court’s jurisdiction in matters concerning Article 146 proceedings, the court struck out the entire application.
The court described the filing as a misuse of legal procedures and declared the motion incompetent for want of jurisdiction.
No order for costs was awarded, as the Attorney General waived the state’s entitlement to legal fees.
With the application dismissed, the impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Torkornoo continue to proceed under the framework established by the Constitution.
