However, Sory described her comments as a troubling display of “sanctimonious political posturing,” asserting that they reflect a fundamental misreading of constitutional law — especially coming from someone of her judicial standing.

In-Camera Proceedings and Supreme Court Precedents

In her address, Justice Torkornoo insisted she had requested a public hearing for the ongoing Article 146 proceedings. Sory sharply disagreed, citing a well-established legal precedent that such proceedings must be held in camera (privately).

He referenced critical rulings in cases such as:

• Justice Dery v. Tiger Eye PI

• Agyei Twum v. Attorney-General

• Ghana Bar Association (GBA) v. Attorney-General

These cases collectively affirm that removal proceedings under Article 146 are confidential and do not allow for public hearings.

Affidavit Controversy and Legal Consistency

Torkornoo also protested the Supreme Court’s decision to strike out her supplementary affidavit. But Sory reminded her — and the public — of her own precedent when she ordered a similar strikeout in the LGBTQ+ legislation case, dismissing an affidavit filed on behalf of Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin.

“Has the Chief Justice so soon forgotten her own rulings on affidavits?” he queried rhetorically.

Locus Standi and Petition Validity

Justice Torkornoo questioned the standing of the petitioners, alleging that they lacked direct interest and that she hadn’t received the full petition documents. Sory countered this claim by referring again to the Agyei Twum case, which established that no strict locus standi is required for filing a petition under Article 146.

Also Read: Suspended CJ Gertrude Torkornoo Is a Victim of Her Own System – Kwaku Ansa-Asare Claims

He also pointed out the inconsistency in her claim: if she didn’t receive the petitions, how was she able to respond to them in the first place—leading to a prima facie case determination?

Dispute Over Hearing Venue and Procedures

Another concern Torkornoo raised was the location of the ongoing hearings — allegedly held in a “high-security zone” at Castle Drive. Sory responded by stating that many previous Article 146 cases, including those involving former EC Chair Charlotte Osei and other superior court justices, were held in judicial buildings — under her own oversight.

Also Read: Suspended Chief Justice Was NPP’s Final Shield Over Judiciary – LPG’s Yaw Asani Tano Alleges

He dismissed her claim that the process should follow the Commissions of Inquiry (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2010 (C.I. 65), clarifying that Article 146 committees are ad hoc bodies with autonomy to define their own procedures — a point earlier affirmed by former Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo.

Resignation and Political Undertones

Justice Torkornoo said resigning during the proceedings would amount to fleeing from accountability. She also alleged that she was under pressure to retire prematurely. Sory, however, saw her statements as an appeal for public sympathy rather than legal clarity.

“The Chief Justice’s public remarks betray a lack of candor, depth in basic legal principles, and fidelity to constitutional law,” he remarked.

Background

Chief Justice Torkornoo was suspended by President John Dramani Mahama following the Judicial Council’s establishment of a prima facie case on three separate petitions. A five-member committee has since been appointed to investigate the matter.

The controversy highlights the delicate balance between judicial independence and public accountability in Ghana’s constitutional democracy.

source: ghanaweb