Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie assumed leadership of Ghana’s Supreme Court Monday amid a constitutional storm that threatens judicial independence and raises fundamental questions about whether the country’s democracy can shield its courts from political manipulation.
President John Dramani Mahama administered oaths to Baffoe-Bonnie during a Jubilee House ceremony that formalized what had been an acting appointment since April, when his predecessor’s suspension triggered Ghana’s most dramatic judicial crisis in six decades. Parliament approved the nomination November 13 with 163 votes supporting and 69 opposing, though minority legislators boycotted vetting proceedings and denounced the entire process as fundamentally compromised.
The 68-year-old jurist has served on the Supreme Court bench for 17 years since President John Kufuor appointed him in June 2008, building a reputation colleagues describe using the metaphor “wicked dagger” to capture his sharp legal reasoning and uncompromising approach to justice. Born December 26, 1956, Baffoe-Bonnie attended Goaso Local Authority schools before earning GCE certificates at Konongo Odumase Secondary School and studying law at University of Ghana. He was called to the Ghana Bar in 1983 and progressed through Circuit Court judgeships in Kumasi, High Court service in Duayaw Nkwanta, and Court of Appeal elevation in 2006.
During his parliamentary vetting, Baffoe-Bonnie pledged that his tenure would anchor on three pillars: procedural clarity, efficiency, and accountability. At Monday’s swearing in, he emphasized that Ghana’s judiciary must remain independent, impartial, and accessible, serving the vulnerable rather than catering to the powerful or connected. These commitments arrive against a backdrop of institutional damage that may take years to repair.
Gertrude Torkornoo, Ghana’s third female Chief Justice who was appointed in June 2023, faced suspension April 22, 2025, after President Mahama determined prima facie evidence existed in three misconduct petitions. The petitions came from businessman Daniel Ofori, a group called Shining Stars, and police official Ayamga Yakubu Akolgo, alleging misuse of public funds and abuse of power over judicial staff transfers. A five member committee chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Pwamang investigated the allegations, though constitutional provisions mandate such proceedings remain confidential.
The committee found that Torkornoo authorized unlawful expenditures including travel expenses and per diems for her spouse and daughter through the judicial service, concluding such misuse constituted misbehavior under Article 146(1) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution. Following the committee’s first report September 1, 2025, the Presidency announced Torkornoo’s immediate removal from office, marking what many characterized as unprecedented executive action against a sitting Chief Justice.
Historical records reveal that President Kwame Nkrumah dismissed Chief Justice Arku Korsah on December 13, 1963, following the acquittal of three defendants in the Kulungugu treason trial, though that action occurred under different constitutional frameworks that granted presidents direct dismissal authority. Torkornoo’s suspension represents the first such action under the 1992 Constitution, which mandates rigorous investigative procedures before removal.
Torkornoo challenged her suspension at Ghana’s Supreme Court in May, arguing the process was unconstitutional because President Mahama’s office did not constitute a valid determination of prima facie case. The Court dismissed her injunction application in a unanimous ruling, reasoning it failed to meet thresholds required to obtain injunctions against constitutional duty exercises. She subsequently filed applications with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court of Justice alleging human rights violations, though that regional court has not yet rendered judgment.
Critics accused Torkornoo of interfering in cases by reconstituting judicial panels, with prominent US based Ghanaian academic Stephen Kwaku Asare submitting petitions alleging she violated constitutional provisions barring any person from interfering with judges exercising judicial power. Her handling of the vacant parliamentary seats case drew particular fire, with opponents questioning the speed of proceedings and accusing her of prioritizing cases aligned with the then ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP).
Former Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo, now a Council of State member, stated in a September 3 interview that Torkornoo’s removal process was unnecessary and weakened the judiciary as an institution. Deputy Attorney General Justice Srem Sai defended the process as constitutional and legitimate, arguing that given her position, Torkornoo ought to have known better regarding public funds management.
The controversy exposes deeper tensions within Ghana’s constitutional framework. Political scientists note parallels with Poland, where Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government has struggled to reform judiciaries perceived as politically compromised under previous administrations. The challenge facing new governments involves transforming judicial systems without breaking due process for appointments and removals, a balance that proves extraordinarily difficult to maintain.
Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution ensures Chief Justices’ security of tenure, allowing removal only for incompetence, misbehavior, or incapacity, with rigorous processes involving the Council of State and investigative committees. Yet these procedural safeguards become meaningless if presidents can determine prima facie evidence exists based on partisan considerations rather than objective legal standards. The opacity surrounding Torkornoo’s case, with petition details remaining secret and committee proceedings closed to public scrutiny, feeds legitimate concerns about whether justice prevailed or politics triumphed.
Minority legislators’ boycott of Baffoe-Bonnie’s vetting reflects deep skepticism about legitimacy. Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin described Baffoe-Bonnie as a disputed nominee and characterized the Justice Pwamang committee’s work as a travesty of justice. When the Majority Leader objected to this characterization citing Standing Orders that bar raising issues about Chief Justices except through subordinate motions, tensions escalated into accusations of bad faith and intimidation.
Baffoe-Bonnie notably served on the Supreme Court panel that ruled against the NPP’s 2013 election petition seeking to scrap approximately four million votes for alleged tampering in the 2012 general election. During vetting, he downplayed suggestions that his current nomination represents a reward for that 2012 decision, though the political optics remain unavoidable given the National Democratic Congress (NDC) benefited from that ruling and now controls the presidency.
President Mahama told Monday’s swearing in ceremony that justice must never be influenced by wealth, power, or social status, stressing that courts must serve the poor and vulnerable equally. He called on the judiciary to intensify anti-corruption efforts, warning that even a single corrupt act can destroy public trust, and encouraged stronger disciplinary systems, transparent case management, and firm action against misconduct.
These exhortations ring somewhat hollow given the circumstances of Baffoe-Bonnie’s elevation. While no evidence suggests the new Chief Justice himself engaged in improper conduct, the process that removed his predecessor and installed him creates appearances of political calculation that undermine the very independence Mahama claims to champion. If one political faction can orchestrate a Chief Justice’s removal based on allegations investigated through closed-door proceedings, what prevents future governments from deploying similar tactics against jurists who render inconvenient decisions?
Baffoe-Bonnie promised to leverage information communication technology and artificial intelligence in empaneling Supreme Court benches and adjudicating cases to expedite trials. Observers suggest his leadership could focus on streamlining judicial processes to reduce case backlogs, resisting political influence through merit based appointments, and mentoring younger justices to ensure institutional continuity. At age 68, he has approximately two years remaining before the mandatory retirement age of 70, creating a limited window for implementing substantive reforms.
Technical competence alone cannot resolve the legitimacy deficits plaguing Ghana’s apex court. The judiciary requires not just efficient case management but also restoration of public confidence that decisions flow from legal reasoning rather than political pressure. Whether Baffoe-Bonnie can achieve this rehabilitation depends partly on his actions but significantly on whether political actors respect judicial independence going forward.
International observers worry that Ghana, long celebrated as West Africa’s democratic exemplar, may be sliding toward patterns seen elsewhere on the continent where ruling parties manipulate judicial appointments to consolidate power. The lack of detailed public explanations for Torkornoo’s removal, combined with the secretive nature of investigative proceedings, generates reasonable suspicions that constitutional processes served as cover for political score settling.
Civil society organizations and legal scholars have called for greater transparency in Article 146 proceedings. While the Constitution mandates confidentiality to protect judicial dignity, this protection becomes problematic when it shields potentially improper political interference from public scrutiny. Balancing judicial independence against accountability for genuine misconduct requires procedural reforms that Ghana has yet to implement.
Baffoe-Bonnie inherits challenges extending beyond the Torkornoo controversy. Ghana’s judiciary faces criticism for delays, inefficiencies, and questions surrounding impartiality in politically sensitive cases. Court backlogs deny citizens timely justice, while perceptions of corruption erode institutional credibility. Addressing these systemic problems demands resources, political will, and sustained commitment that transcends individual Chief Justice tenures.
The new Chief Justice told parliamentarians that Ghana needs a judiciary capable not just of interpreting law but of elevating conscience, functioning as a guardian of rights and final arbiter of rule of law rather than a political actor. This vision represents aspirational rhetoric that recent events have rendered more difficult to achieve. When the process of selecting Ghana’s top judge generates intense political conflict and partisan division, the institution itself suffers damage that undermines its capacity to serve as impartial arbiter.
The coming months will reveal whether Baffoe-Bonnie can navigate these treacherous waters successfully. His judicial philosophy emphasizing equality before law regardless of social status offers hope, but rhetoric must translate into consistent practice that withstands political pressures from all directions. Ghana’s democracy depends on maintaining courts that citizens trust to deliver justice fairly, and recent turbulence has severely tested that foundational trust.
History will judge not only Baffoe-Bonnie’s individual performance but also whether Ghana’s constitutional system proved resilient enough to protect judicial independence from partisan manipulation. The stakes extend far beyond personalities or particular cases to encompass fundamental questions about whether West African democracies can sustain institutions that constrain executive power and safeguard rights even when politically inconvenient.
Source: newsghana.com.gh
