Former Attorney General and diplomat, Ayikoi Otoo, has challenged the basis on which former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo was removed from office, warning that the decision raises troubling questions about due process and accountability in governance.
Speaking on PM Express on Joy News on Monday, September 1, Mr. Otoo said there was no proven evidence of misconduct that could justify President John Mahama’s decision to sack the Chief Justice, describing the committee’s findings as flawed and inconsistent with established judicial policies.
According to him, the former Chief Justice’s request to take vacation leave in Arusha, Tanzania, along with the processing of her entitlements by the judiciary’s administrative officers, fell squarely within the rules. He argued that it was misleading to frame her actions as financial impropriety.
“When you are in that office and you have to travel, is it for you to determine I want this or that? No. It is for the organisation to work it and give it to you. Assuming it was wrongly given to you, is that not why you have auditors? Is that a ground for removal?” he asked.
Mr. Otoo noted that the judiciary has a travel policy that outlines benefits for the Chief Justice and a companion of their choice—whether a spouse or another individual. He lamented that the committee ignored this document despite it being tendered as evidence during proceedings.
He further questioned why possible administrative errors were treated as misconduct instead of being subjected to normal auditing and accountability measures such as surcharges.
“If the officers miscalculated, the solution is an audit, not a dismissal. Mislabeling it as misappropriation sets a dangerous precedent,” he cautioned.
Expressing disappointment in the committee’s work, Mr. Otoo singled out Daniel Domelevo, a member of the panel, for endorsing the recommendation despite hearing counterarguments.
The former Attorney General warned that framing administrative entitlements as corruption without proper auditing undermines the independence of the judiciary and weakens safeguards for public office holders.
“This issue was never about misbehaviour—it was about process. And if we begin to blur that line, no public officer is safe,” he concluded.
