Case raises critical questions about judicial independence and constitutional protections for judges
Ghana’s Supreme Court is preparing to hear a potentially precedent-setting case that could redefine the security of tenure for judges at the country’s highest court. At the centre of the legal storm is former Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, who is challenging her removal from the Supreme Court following her dismissal as Chief Justice by President John Dramani Mahama.
The case, which pivots on the interpretation of several constitutional provisions, raises a fundamental question: Does a Chief Justice automatically forfeit their role as a Supreme Court Justice when removed from the headship of the judiciary?
Torkornoo, in a petition filed on September 18, argues that while the President acted on a recommendation to remove her as Chief Justice, no lawful process was followed to terminate her position as a Justice of the Supreme Court, a separate and constitutionally protected office.
Her legal team contends that the two roles—though interconnected—are distinct under Ghana’s constitutional architecture, and that any removal from the bench of the Supreme Court must follow its own process under Article 146(4). According to her suit, the committee that investigated her had no jurisdiction to recommend her removal from the Supreme Court.
The matter has now prompted the Attorney-General, through Deputy A-G Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, to file a motion at the High Court, requesting a referral to the Supreme Court for interpretation under Article 130, which gives the apex court exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional matters.
The Attorney-General’s application seeks clarification on whether:
-
A person retains their judicial seat on the Supreme Court after ceasing to be Chief Justice;
-
The Chief Justice’s position as a member of the Supreme Court is ex officio or substantively held;
-
Removal from the Chief Justice role can automatically affect membership in the wider Superior Courts.
If the High Court agrees that the matter involves constitutional interpretation, it is required to refer it to the Supreme Court. Failing that, the Attorney-General may escalate the matter directly to the apex court.
The implications of this legal showdown are far-reaching. Legal analysts say the outcome could reshape how tenure security for judges—a key pillar of judicial independence—is interpreted and protected in Ghana’s democracy.
Critics of the removal argue that allowing the executive to dismiss a Supreme Court Justice through a process tied only to the Chief Justice role sets a dangerous precedent, potentially undermining the separation of powers.
Justice Torkornoo’s legal challenge also draws upon Article 141, which empowers the High Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over lower bodies and officials accused of exceeding their constitutional limits or acting unfairly.
The controversy began on September 1, when President Mahama removed Justice Torkornoo from both the Chief Justice post and the Supreme Court bench, following a misconduct recommendation from a special investigative committee.
Now, the Supreme Court must determine whether that action stands on solid constitutional ground—or whether it represents a breach of the protective mechanisms designed to shield Ghana’s judiciary from political influence.
