Report By: Sandra Ampofo
Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo has made a plea to the Supreme Court, urging it to take action and halt what she characterizes as a systematic and humiliating effort to remove her from her position.
She cautioned that the very essence of judicial independence in Ghana is under siege.
In a supplementary affidavit supporting her motion for an interlocutory injunction, Justice Torkornoo outlines a series of events that she believes illustrate “a complete violation of [her] fundamental constitutional rights,” which include the right to a fair hearing, dignity, and protection from inhumane treatment.
“This Honourable Court is the sole barrier between me and an unconstitutional attack on the office I occupy and the independence it represents,” she asserted.
“Only you can stop this assault on judicial independence.”
She argues that the inquiry process initiated against her, along with the actions of the committee established by the President, have been characterized by clear breaches of due process and personal humiliation.
“I have been treated in a manner that is not even accorded to individuals facing charges of treason,” she expressed in the affidavit, describing the treatment as degrading and psychologically torturous.
Justice Torkornoo’s concerns arise not only from the nature of the accusations against her—details of which she claims have never been adequately conveyed—but also from the procedural aspects involved.
She disclosed that she has not been made aware of the legal grounds on which a prima facie case was established, nor of the specific charges she is expected to respond to.
“How can I defend myself when I don’t even know what I’m defending against?” she inquired.
She recounted how her legal representatives were excluded during a significant committee meeting on May 15th, despite having received official notification of the hearing.
“The committee simply refused to acknowledge my counsel because I was not physically present,” she remarked incredulously.
When she finally appeared before the committee on May 22nd accompanied by her legal team, they briefed the members regarding her Supreme Court lawsuit.
The committee then adjourned for a day, requesting copies of the legal documents. However, by May 23rd, Justice Torkornoo stated that the committee shockingly declared its intention to move forward despite the injunction application being presented to the highest court in the country.
To exacerbate the situation, she noted, the committee decided to permit petitioners to summon external witnesses instead of appearing and testifying themselves.
“This is not merely irregular. It is an affront to the fundamental principles of inquiry,” she contended. “Petitioners should be subjected to cross-examination. That is what justice requires.”
The Chief Justice also describes a troubling scenario regarding the treatment she has endured during the hearings, which were not conducted at the Judicial Service’s Court Complex as previous Article 146 proceedings had been, but rather at the Castle, Osu, a high-security area.
There, she claims, her husband and children were denied entry, she and her legal representatives were prohibited from using phones and laptops, and she was subjected to a personal search.
In contrast, she alleges, the petitioners’ counsel moved about freely with phones and other devices.
“These actions are not simply procedural irregularities,” she asserted. “They are intentional strategies aimed at psychologically breaking me and undermining the dignity of my position.”
Justice Torkornoo maintains that all prior removal proceedings against judges under Article 146 have occurred at the Courts Complex—a location she deems the suitable judicial environment. The shift to the Castle, she argues, “defies logic” and indicates an attempt to intimidate.
Labeling the entire process a “mockery of justice” and “a scheme to unjustly remove me from my position,” she implores the Supreme Court to promptly stop the proceedings by granting an interlocutory injunction.
“This issue transcends my personal situation,” she cautions. “What is at stake is the security of tenure for every judge.”What is at risk is the fundamental essence of our Constitution.
Source: www.thenewindependentonline.com
