Legal Practitioner Urges Expedited Proceedings in Chief Justice Suspension Case

Private legal practitioner Saeed Salahudeen has called on the five-member committee investigating petitions against suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo to accelerate its inquiry, warning against unnecessary delays in resolving the high-profile constitutional dispute.

Speaking during a televised panel discussion on Saturday, Salahudeen stressed that while the Chief Justice remains suspended, “she is presumed innocent until proven otherwise,” and urged the committee to act swiftly to uphold public confidence in judicial processes.

President John Dramani Mahama established the committee under Article 146(6) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, tasked with probing three petitions alleging misconduct against the Chief Justice. The panel, chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, includes Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, former Auditor-General Daniel Yaw Domelevo, Ghana Armed Forces representative Major Flora Bazwaanura Dalugo, and University of Ghana professor James Sefah Dzisah. The president suspended Torkornoo on April 22, 2024, citing Article 146(10) after consultations with the Council of State determined a prima facie case existed.

The petitions, submitted to the presidency in March 2025 by unnamed individuals, prompted Mahama to initiate constitutional procedures for potential removal. However, the process has been complicated by parallel legal challenges at the Supreme Court, where plaintiffs including Old Tafo MP Vincent Ekow Assafuah are seeking injunctions to halt the proceedings. A four-member Supreme Court panel, chaired by Justice Osei Bonsu, adjourned hearings until May 6 due to the absence of Justice Samuel Asiedu, further prolonging the deadlock.

During court arguments, former Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame contended that the president should pause consultations with the Council of State until injunction applications are resolved. “The law prohibits continuing court processes during an injunction,” Dame asserted. Attorney General Dominic Ayine countered, however, that presidential constitutional obligations cannot be legally enjoined. “The president is performing a constitutional duty. You cannot restrain such actions,” Ayine argued, reflecting the government’s stance that procedural delays undermine accountability mechanisms.

The case highlights simmering tensions between executive authority and judicial independence, with legal experts divided over the interpretation of Article 146. While the provision allows presidents to suspend senior judges pending investigations, critics argue its application without clear regulatory frameworks risks politicizing the judiciary. The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has repeatedly criticized the suspension as unconstitutional, citing Article 296’s requirement for parliamentary oversight of discretionary powers.

Analysts note the outcome could set precedents for handling judicial misconduct allegations in Ghana, where public trust in institutions has been tested by recurring governance disputes. The Chief Justice’s suspension coincides with broader regional concerns about democratic backsliding in West Africa, making the case a litmus test for Ghana’s adherence to constitutional norms. As the committee begins its work, observers emphasize that transparency and adherence to due process will be critical to preserving judicial integrity.

The Supreme Court’s impending ruling on injunctions adds another layer of complexity, with potential implications for the separation of powers. For now, the Chief Justice’s fate hinges on a delicate balance between expedited accountability and procedural rigor, as Ghana’s legal community awaits clarity on the boundaries of presidential authority in judicial oversight.