AG contests suspended CJ’s court action against Shining Stars petition

The Office of the Attorney-General has moved to strike out a second judicial review application filed by suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, who is seeking to have one of three removal petitions against her dismissed.

The latest application, lodged on 23 June 2025, challenges a petition submitted by a group known as the Shining Stars of Ghana.

Lawyers for the suspended Chief Justice contend that the petition is invalid, arguing that the group is neither a registered entity nor identifiable by its membership.

However, Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, representing the state, has rejected these claims, insisting they are unfounded and should not obstruct the committee established under Article 146 of the Constitution from carrying out its mandate.

In an affidavit sworn by State Attorney Reginald Nii Odoi, the AG’s office argued that “a body of persons—whether named or unnamed and, if named, by whatever designation—need not be incorporated or registered to exist at law.”

This marks Justice Torkornoo’s second attempt to use the High Court’s judicial review powers to halt the committee’s work.

Her earlier bid sought to have all three petitions struck out and to suspend the Justice Pawmang Committee’s sittings over alleged breaches of natural justice. That application was dismissed for being an abuse of court process and for lack of jurisdiction.

Although a related interpretation case is pending before the Supreme Court, an injunction arising from it was also refused, clearing the way for the Article 146 proceedings to continue.

In its latest response, the Attorney-General’s office maintains that the suspended Chief Justice’s arguments concern the internal proceedings of the Article 146 committee, which the Constitution stipulates must be conducted in camera.

It concluded that “the issues raised by the originating motion are not admissible in this Honourable Court,” reiterating its position that the High Court lacks jurisdiction over matters arising under Article 146.

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.