The Supreme Court has indefinitely adjourned the hearing of an application seeking to halt the process of determining a prima facie case regarding petitions for the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo. The adjournment was prompted by the absence of Attorney General Dr. Dominic Ayine and his deputy, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, who were attending a training workshop for state attorneys .
The court had been scheduled to hear the case filed by Vincent Ekow Asafuah, a Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, who is seeking a declaration that the president’s decision to consult the Council of State on the determination of prima facie without first seeking the Chief Justice’s response is unconstitutional. Asafuah argues that this process violates Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, which outlines the procedure for removing a Chief Justice .
Godfred Yeboah Dame, representing Asafuah, expressed surprise at the Attorney General’s absence and requested the court to adjourn the case to April 14. Although two state attorneys appeared in court as a courtesy, the absence of key legal representatives led to the indefinite adjournment.
Background of the Petitions
The petitions for the Chief Justice’s removal were submitted to the President, who is expected to review them and confer with the Council of State. The Chief Justice has requested a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations before further steps are taken
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for Ghana’s judiciary and the rule of law. The Supreme Court’s decision will determine whether the process of removing the Chief Justice can proceed without her response being considered.
Key Issues at Stake
– Unconstitutionality Claim: Asafuah claims that the president’s decision to consult the Council of State without seeking the Chief Justice’s response is unconstitutional.
– Judicial Independence: The case raises questions about the independence of the judiciary and the security of tenure for the Chief Justice.
– Accountability: The petitions against the Chief Justice allege misconduct and incompetence, highlighting the need for accountability in the judiciary .
