GBA Calls for Restraint in Chief Justice Suspension Process

The Ghana Bar Association has issued a measured statement urging all parties involved in Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo’s suspension to prioritize judicial independence and constitutional propriety.

The legal body’s carefully worded intervention comes as Ghana navigates uncharted constitutional waters following the unprecedented suspension of its top judge.

While acknowledging the constitutional framework for judicial removal under Article 146, the GBA emphasized the need for actors to adhere to both the letter and spirit of the law. The association’s reference to Article 296, which governs discretionary powers, serves as a subtle reminder to the five-member investigative committee and political actors to exercise their authority judiciously.

President Mahama’s administration has followed prescribed procedures thus far, establishing a committee comprising two Supreme Court justices and three respected professionals after determining a prima facie case existed based on three petitions. The inclusion of figures like former Auditor-General Daniel Domelevo suggests an attempt at balanced scrutiny, though critics question whether any process against a sitting Chief Justice can ever be entirely free from political undertones.

The GBA’s statement walks a delicate line – neither endorsing nor condemning the suspension, but insisting the process must reinforce rather than undermine judicial independence. This reflects the legal community’s awareness that the judiciary’s credibility depends on both its impartiality and the public’s perception of its autonomy from political influence.

As the committee begins its in-camera proceedings, the nation watches whether this constitutional mechanism can withstand intense political scrutiny. The outcome may redefine the boundaries between Ghana’s judicial and executive branches for years to come, making the GBA’s call for restraint particularly timely. How this process unfolds could either strengthen confidence in Ghana’s constitutional safeguards or expose vulnerabilities in its separation of powers doctrine.