Member of Parliament for Manhyia South and Vice Chairman of the Subsidiary Legislation Committee, Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah, has questioned the removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, calling the move procedurally flawed and unfair. what he decribes as “rushed” manner.
President John Mahama on September 1, 2025, removed the Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo from office with immediate effect on grounds of stated misbehaviour.
This follows recommendations from a constitutional committee set up under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.
The decision comes barely hours after the President received the report of a committee constituted under Article 146(6) to inquire into a petition filed by Ghanaian citizen Daniel Ofori. That was only one out of the three petitions.
Speaking on Newsfile on JoyNews, Baffour Awuah queried the unexplained urgency to process only one of three petitions filed in relation to the Chief Justice, despite there being no constitutional timelines requiring such haste.
“In the absence of timelines, what was the committee in a hurry for? Why the rush?” he asked.
“Particularly because you have two other petitions pending before you. Who was putting pressure on you to achieve what – when you are dealing with a matter as important as the removal of the Chief Justice of the Republic?”
The MP noted that pushing through just one petition with the claim that it would render the others redundant, was not only premature but potentially unconstitutional.
He warned that such conduct could be interpreted as a prejudgement of the outcome of related petitions.
“Why were you in a hurry to present on just one of the petitions, which in your view will then dispose of the matters and make the other petitions redundant?” he challenged.
“Couldn’t you have taken your time to receive the address or submission of the Chief Justice? Doesn’t fairness dictate it?”
Baffour Awuah explained that the proceedings were not a Commission of Inquiry, even if conducted under Constitutional Instrument (CI) 47, which governs civil procedure in Ghana’s courts.
He argued that even under CI 47, courts regularly grant adjournments to ensure fairness and due process.
“Even with CI 47, how many times doesn’t the court adjourn just to take our addresses?” he pointed out.
“Sometimes, even when the court has fixed a date for parties to file their addresses, a party may submit an application that affects the schedule. In such cases, the court hears the application and sets a new date.”
According to him, this flexibility exists to ensure that all parties are adequately heard and must be upheld when dealing with matters as weighty as the potential removal of a sitting Chief Justice.
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.
Source: myjoyonline.com
