KEY POINTS
- The removal process against Chief Justice faces due process challenges.
- Former AG stresses upholding the removal process against Chief Justice.
- The removal process against Chief Justice demands rule of law respect.
The continuing removal proceedings against suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo are defective, according to former Attorney General Godfred Dame. He said that the procedure had disregarded due process and constitutional considerations.
Concerns rise over removal process against chief justice
Following yet another setback in her attempt to halt the committee’s investigation, Mr. Dame, the Chief Justice’s attorney, spoke outside the Accra court.
Her request for an injunction against the five-member committee looking into three petitions calling for her removal was unanimously denied by the Supreme Court on Wednesday, May 28.
According to myjoyonline, the decision was made just hours after the court unanimously rejected her supplemental affidavit.
The Chief Justice’s attorney vehemently disagrees with the criticism that she should willingly step down in order to avert more issues.
Former ag stresses rule of law in removal process against chief justice
Godfred Dame told reporters that Ghana must uphold due process and constitutionalism, so resignation is not an option.
He continued, “We seek upholding of the rule of law, not decisions made by pressure on the Chief Justice to resign.”
The Chief Justice is aware of her constitutional rights and is requesting that the correct legal procedure be followed, the Dame underlined.
Gertrude Torkornoo applied to the Supreme Court on May 21 in an attempt to halt a committee that President John Mahama had established to look into petitions against her.
She asked for an interlocutory injunction to stop the committee’s work until the case’s outcome was known.
According to court records, she requested that the Supreme Court prevent the six-member committee—which included Justices Pwamang and Adibu-Asiedu—from conducting any investigation into the petitions.
Additionally, the application aimed to prevent Justices Pwamang and Adibu-Asiedu from taking part in the committee’s discussions.
In addition, the Chief Justice requested that the court halt the suspension warrant that the President had issued in accordance with Article 146(10) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has rejected additional legal challenges to the committee’s procedures that were filed by both individuals and organizations.
