The Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, has mounted a robust legal challenge against her suspension and the ongoing impeachment proceedings initiated by President John Dramani Mahama.

On May 21, 2025, she filed an interlocutory injunction at the Supreme Court, seeking to halt the activities of a five-member committee set up by the President to investigate three separate petitions seeking her removal from office.

This unprecedented legal challenge marks the first time in the Fourth Republic that a sitting Chief Justice has taken legal action against a presidential committee probing their conduct, sparking a nationwide debate over judicial independence, executive overreach, and constitutional checks and balances.

Background to the Crisis

President Mahama, acting under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, suspended Chief Justice Torkornoo in April 2025 after allegedly establishing a prima facie case against her based on the contents of three petitions.

The details of the petitions have not been officially disclosed, but sources indicate that they contain allegations of misconduct and abuse of office.

A five-member committee—comprising Supreme Court Justices Gabriel Scott Pwamang and Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, former Auditor-General Daniel Yao Domelevo, military officer Major Flora Bazwaanura Dalugo, and an academic Professor James Sefah Dzisah—was set up to probe the petitions.

However, Justice Torkornoo, through her lawyers, has questioned both the legality of the committee and the process through which the prima facie determination was made, describing it as flawed, biased, and a violation of her constitutional rights.

The 16 Reliefs Sought by the Chief Justice

In her suit, Chief Justice Torkornoo is seeking 16 specific reliefs from the Supreme Court:

1. Right to a Public Hearing: A declaration that she is entitled to a public hearing under Articles 17, 19, 146, 281, and 295 of the Constitution unless such a hearing would compromise public morality, safety, or order.

2. Waiver of In Camera Privilege: A ruling affirming that the Chief Justice can voluntarily waive the right to a closed-door (in camera) proceeding if she chooses a public hearing.

3. Judicious Prima Facie Requirement: A declaration that determining a prima facie case against a Chief Justice is a quasi-judicial function that must be reasoned and judicious—not arbitrary.

4. Improper Prima Facie Finding: A declaration that the President’s April 22, 2025 letter conveying a prima facie finding is legally invalid and does not constitute a proper determination.

5. Arbitrary Action by President: A declaration that the President's action in determining a prima facie case was arbitrary, capricious, and violated her right to a fair trial, rendering it unconstitutional.

6. Attack on Judicial Independence: A declaration that the President’s action and the resulting suspension constitute an unlawful attempt to oust her from office and infringe on judicial independence.

7. Denial of Substantive Justice: A declaration that her rights to fair hearing and administrative justice were breached by the failure to serve her a properly reasoned prima facie finding before forming the committee.

8. Nullification of Suspension: An order setting aside the President’s suspension letter dated April 22, 2025.

9. Conflict of Interest – Justice Pwamang: A declaration that Justice Pwamang is disqualified from chairing the committee due to his prior rulings in favour of one of the petitioners, Daniel Ofori.

10. Prohibition – Justice Pwamang: An order barring Justice Pwamang from chairing or participating in the proceedings of the committee.

11. Conflict of Interest – Justice Adibu-Asiedu: A declaration that Justice Adibu-Asiedu is disqualified due to his prior involvement in adjudicating an application linked to these proceedings.

12. Prohibition – Justice Adibu-Asiedu: An order restraining Justice Adibu-Asiedu from participating in the committee's work.

13. Disqualification of Non-Judicial Members: A declaration that the remaining committee members—Domelevo, Dalugo, and Dzisah—are not qualified under the Constitution and Oaths Act to serve on the panel.

14. Restraint on Committee: An order restraining all five members of the committee from continuing their work.

15. Violation of Constitutional Provisions: A general declaration that the entire process initiated under Article 146 violates several constitutional guarantees of fairness and impartiality.

16. Further Orders: A request for any additional reliefs the court may deem appropriate.

Implications for Judicial Independence

Justice Torkornoo’s suit signals a pivotal constitutional test for Ghana’s democracy.

At the core of her argument is the claim that the current process is an orchestrated political move to oust her without due process.

By challenging the composition of the investigative committee and the validity of the prima facie determination, she seeks not just to protect her tenure but to reaffirm the autonomy of the judiciary in the face of executive power.

This legal showdown comes on the heels of recent Supreme Court rulings dismissing separate injunction suits filed by private citizens attempting to halt the impeachment process.

However, the Chief Justice’s direct legal confrontation with the President's actions sets the stage for a landmark judicial ruling that could redefine constitutional governance in Ghana.

The nation now watches closely as the Supreme Court prepares to hear what could be the most consequential judicial challenge of the Mahama administration.