Justice Torkornoo, who was suspended following a petition seeking her removal from office, recently broke her silence by expressing concern over what she described as breaches of Article 146 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution — the legal provision guiding the removal of justices.

This was her first public statement since the impeachment petition surfaced.

Ansa-Asare: Public Commentary Undermines Due Process

Speaking on Citi FM on Tuesday, June 25, Mr. Ansa-Asare described her remarks as “misguided and unnecessary.” He insisted that once a constitutionally mandated procedure had been triggered, it must be allowed to proceed without external influence.

Also Read: “They Try to Provoke Me, But I’ve Turned a Deaf Ear” – Ken Agyapong Promises Political Composure

“Ghanaians wanted to support her by watching the process unfold, but instead of seeing it through, she’s now calling it skewed while refusing to resign,” he said. “It seems she’s turned to the public to gain sympathy.”

Ansa-Asare warned that bringing the “court of public opinion” into a legal process of this magnitude could compromise the integrity of Ghana’s judiciary and democratic systems.

The Article 146 Removal Process

According to Article 146, the President is required to act on a petition for the removal of a judge by referring it to a committee. The process is confidential and must be handled without external interference, including from media outlets or public forums.

Despite this, Justice Torkornoo’s public remarks have reignited national debate, with some civil society groups defending her transparency, while legal purists argue it risks compromising institutional neutrality.

Ansa-Asare firmly disagreed with any justification for going public:

“See what the president is doing to me, and if I appear before the committee, you will see what they are doing — It is none of our business to bring the public into this controversy,” he said.

Background

The suspension of Chief Justice Torkornoo has become one of the most talked-about constitutional issues in recent Ghanaian history. Critics claim it exposes flaws in the judicial oversight mechanism, while others see it as a test of the rule of law in a democratic state.

The suspended Chief Justice filed an interlocutory injunction at the Supreme Court of Ghana, which was later dismissed on grounds of procedural compliance.

source: myjoyonline

Speaking on Peace FM, Tano alleged that Justice Torkornoo’s elevation to the highest judicial office did not follow the standard seniority protocol. According to him, she was ranked seventh in line among her peers when appointed and was selected primarily because of her age and proximity to retirement, ensuring a longer tenure in office.

“It wasn’t her turn. She was appointed to secure NPP’s interests in the judiciary beyond their time in office,” he stated.

Judiciary as Political Insurance?

Tano labeled the judiciary as the “last protective covering” for the ruling party, arguing that Justice Torkornoo’s rise to Chief Justice in 2023 was politically motivated rather than based on merit. He claimed the appointment was meant to secure long-term judicial influence for the NPP, even if it were voted out in subsequent elections.

Also Read: “I Want to Meet the Boxer Who Wore My Sticker” – Adom Kyei-Duah Reacts to Viral Fight

This assertion comes amid ongoing public scrutiny of judicial independence in Ghana, particularly concerning appointments made by political leaders during their final years in power.

Legal Setback for Suspended Chief Justice

The controversy surrounding Justice Torkornoo intensified after she filed an injunction application on May 21, 2025, seeking to halt a presidential committee’s investigation into petitions for her removal.

However, the Supreme Court of Ghana unanimously dismissed her application on May 28, 2025, effectively greenlighting the six-member investigative committee formed by President John Dramani Mahama.

The application aimed to restrain the committee—comprising Justices Gabriel Scott Pwamang, Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, former Auditor-General Daniel Yao Domelevo, Major Flora Bazuwaaruah Dalugo, and Prof. James Sefah Dziasah—from proceeding with the inquiry.

Justice Torkornoo also sought to have Justices Pwamang and Adibu-Asiedu recused from the committee, alleging potential bias in the handling of her case.

The Road Ahead

The dismissal of the injunction marks a significant development in the unfolding judicial saga, which could have lasting implications on public trust in Ghana’s legal institutions. The allegations of political interference in judicial appointments have sparked calls for reforms, including a more transparent and merit-based system for selecting Supreme Court justices.

Also Read: “They Try to Provoke Me, But I’ve Turned a Deaf Ear” – Ken Agyapong Promises Political Composure

While the Office of the President and the Judicial Service have not issued formal responses to Tano’s claims, the conversation adds to the growing debate over how deeply politics influences the judiciary in Ghana.

source: GhanaWeb