Details of suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo’s response to 3 of the petitions for her removal have been made public.
The responses of Justice Torkornoo were to the petitions filed by a group calling itself the Shining Stars of Ghana; a senior police officer, Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Ayamga Yakubu Akolgo (Esq); and a private citizen, Daniel Ofori.
Shining Stars, who first petitioned the president on February 14, 2025, accused her of breaching the 1992 Constitution of Ghana in her ruling in the suit filed by the current Minority Leader, Alexander Kwamina Afenyo-Markin, against the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, over the declaration of four seats in Parliament as vacant.
In the second petition, which was presented by one Daniel Ofori on Monday, March 17, 2025, Justice Torkornoo is accused of financial misappropriation of about GH¢261,890 and US$30,000 in her foreign trips.
“In 2023, the Honourable Chief Justice misappropriated the sum of GH¢261,890.00 of public funds for the benefit of the Chief Justice for her private foreign travel with her husband, Mr Francis Kofi Torkornoo, and her daughter Miss Edem S.A. Torkornoo, and US$30,000 in per diem allowance when, to her knowledge, neither the husband of the Chief Justice nor the Chief Justice’s daughter were entitled to have their travel or any travel allowances paid for out of the funds of the Judicial Service,” part of Ofori’s petition is quoted.
The 3rd petition, which is by ACP Ayamga Yakubu Akolgo, accused Justice Torkornoo of violating the ethics of the bench and called for her removal.
The senior police officer is reported to have stated in his petition that the Chief Justice abused her powers by wrongly causing his arrest and detention.
“She abuses the sacred judicial office by wrongly causing my arrest and detention. The arrest and detention were capricious, unreasonable, unilateral, and without justification, constituting stated misbehaviour and incompetence as provided in Article 146(1) of the Constitution. The arrest and detention infringed on my rights, dignity, and resulted in pain, trauma, and humiliation,” his petition is quoted.
But the CJ has responded to these claims.
Find below Justice Torkornoo’s detailed responses to the petitions:
Response on Shining Stars:
“On 17 December 2024, one Professor Asare presented a petition on, inter alia, this same issue, to the President of the Republic.
“He sought the same relief sought by the current petitioner, thereby invoking the process set out under article 146 for the removal of superior court Justices, including the Chief Justice.
“Your Excellency, the then President, His Excellency Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, referred the petition to the Council of State, after requesting the responses of the Chief Justice. I submitted my response to the President.
“The President, in consultation with the Council of State, conducted a consideration of whether the petition on this subject matter raises a prima facie case for removal of the Chief Justice.
“The conclusion of the determination of the President, in consultation with the Council of State, on this subject matter found on Page 8, therefore, was that ‘No provision of the Constitution or law has been breached.
“The Petitioner has failed to establish any misbehaviour or incompetence on the part of the Chief Justice to warrant her removal from office under this charge. Accordingly, this allegation is without any basis and is, therefore, dismissed.
“Respectfully, this consideration of the President and the Council of State was arrived at after considering the same facts and issues raised by the petitioner herein and the fact that my recommendations rested on the established practice articulated by the Supreme Court in the GBA case.
“It is further respectfully submitted that the rule not to try anyone twice on the same facts and question in the same forum is an entrenched rule of our jurisdiction.
“It is administered in civil law within the doctrine of res judicata, arising from subject matter or issue estoppel. The legal foundation for this protection from double jeopardy is also found in criminal justice and is administered within the plea of ‘autrefois convict’ or ‘autrefois acquit’.
“To the extent that this same august constitutional forum created purposely to resolve issues regarding the initial review of a Petition against any Chief Justice of the realm has concluded a determination on this issue, it is my appeal that the issue should be considered res judicata.”
“The petitioner questions the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Afenyo Markin v Speaker of Parliament and Attorney General, Suit No J1/02/2025.
“He complained that, based on the facts and issues, and the ruling of the court, the Chief Justice who presided over the suit was in breach of the rules of natural justice.
“Humbly, the Petition misses two critical points. The hearing and decisions complained about are the decisions of the Supreme Court and not the decisions of the Chief Justice.
“The Supreme Court is always composed of not fewer than five Justices, for the exercise of its judicial functions under article 128 of the 1992 Constitution, except when its work is executed by a single Justice of the court under article 134.
“In the conduct of the work of the Supreme Court, the presiding Judge, whether the Chief Justice or another senior member of the court, is not the court, and none of the Judges who participate in a decision can be singled out for criticism of the legal import or effect of the court’s work.
“At the end of proceedings by each panel of the Supreme Court, all Judges sign the record created, indicating their concurrence with the record of the court. Article 127 on Independence of the Judiciary also provides:
“127 (3) A Justice of a Superior Court, or any person exercising judicial power, shall not be liable to any action or suit for any act or omission by him in the exercise of the judicial power.
“It is therefore humbly submitted that the Chief Justice cannot be subject to the onerous procedure of being removed from office on account of the opinion of the Petitioner regarding the quality of the Supreme Court’s decision. This is especially so when judicial decisions may be re-examined only through judicial processes that are provided for by law.”
Response to Daniel Ofori:
“The petitioner alleges that as Chief Justice, I misappropriated the sum of GH¢261,890.00 of public funds for my private foreign travel with my husband Mr Francis Kofi Torkornoo and my daughter Miss Edem S.A. Torkornoo when, according to him, neither person was entitled to have their travel paid for out of the funds of the Judicial Service of Ghana.
“My humble response is that the allegation is an unfortunate untruth. Please find herewith the following evidence. Paragraph B1 of the “POLICY ON FOREIGN TRAVELS BY HEAD OF THE JUDICIARY AND SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES,” provides for two holidays for the Chief Justice in a year, with travel expenses, hotel accommodation, and per diem to be borne by the Judicial Service and capped at 14 days per round trip.
Paragraph A (9) provides that “The Chief Justice shall undertake unlimited official travels with either his/her Spouse or other person of his/her choice in a year, fully funded by the Judicial Service.”
Paragraph A (10) provides that “Where the Spouse or other person accompanies the Chief Justice, he/she shall travel on the same class of air ticket as the Chief Justice and shall be paid the equivalent of half the per diem paid to the Chief Justice.”
“This has been the policy of the Judicial Service since 2010, as amended in 2019. Exhibit DO4 is a response to the audit observation provided by the Judicial Secretary to auditors who sought clarification on the expenditure on the ticket purchased for my husband and daughter during my two holidays in 2023.
“On Page 1 of Exhibit DO4, the Judicial Secretary clarified that, as Chief Justice, I opted to utilise the authorisation in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Travel Policy to travel with my spouse and my daughter during my two holidays in September 2023—pursuant to the conditions of appointment of the Chief Justice.
“In view of this option, there was no infraction occasioned when I opted to travel for my two holidays with my spouse on one occasion and my daughter on the second occasion. The Response to Observation 1 and Response to Observation 2 of Exhibit DO4 provides an explanation of the expenditure on tickets for my husband and daughter that the petitioner has unfortunately described as misappropriation of public funds by the Chief Justice.
“Response on Page 3 of Exhibit DO4 further confirms that contrary to the unfortunate allegation that I failed to retire imprest of $14,000 given to me for my travel, I spent an amount of $4,411 out of the said imprest and retired the remaining $9,588.20. I also attach herewith Exhibit DO5 in further proof of the retirement of that imprest on 14 September 2023, on my second day at work after the said journey.
“In September 2023, I fell ill from exhaustion when I arrived in Arusha and had to return to Ghana a day early to ensure that I had one full day to journey to Cape Coast for the annual conference of the Ghana Bar Association. This led to a change and re-routing of my return journey to Ghana through Ethiopian Airlines. Page 4 of Exhibit DO4 provides information on this.
“It is therefore unfortunate that the Petitioner, an outsider to the records of Judicial Service, should create the wrong presentation of this expenditure used for the purchase of tickets for the Chief Justice.
“I wish to state that as Chief Justice, I neither purchase travel tickets, nor determine the per diem issued to me or issued to the aides, security, or persons who are required to travel with me. Neither do I authorise the per diem given to me for any journey.
“The said per diem is determined in accordance with rates set by the Article 71 Committee on Emoluments for the Chief Justice of the Republic. It is also administered by the Judicial Secretary and the Director of Finance of the Judicial Service.
“I am therefore incapable of misappropriating any public funds with respect to a ticket purchased for me or the person accompanying me on a journey, or the per diem issued. Indeed, I am not signatory to any account and do not have access to the accounts of the Judicial Service.”
Response to Ayamga:
“Your Excellency, while I do not hesitate to apologise on behalf of the Supreme Court and myself if any court user, including the Petitioner, had a bad experience in court while I was presiding over a case, my humble submission is that the Petition does not provide any element of ‘misbehaviour or incompetence’ that can lead to removal of a Chief Justice under the 1992 Constitution.
“The hearing and proceedings complained about are the proceedings of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is always composed of not less than five Justices for the exercise of its judicial functions under Article 128 of the 1992 Constitution, except when its work is executed by a single Justice under Article 134.
In the conduct of the work of the Supreme Court, the presiding Judge, whether the Chief Justice or another senior member of the court, is not the court. And any directions given during the court’s work are the directions of the court, and not the directions of any individual judge.
“As stated by the Petitioner, other members of the court gave various directions and contributions during the proceedings of the day. All those directions and contributions formed part of the work of the court that day.
“Article 127 on Independence of the Judiciary provides: 127 (3) A Justice of a Superior Court, or any person exercising judicial power, shall not be liable to any action or suit for any act or omission by him in the exercise of the judicial power.
“Because of the weight of Article 127 (3), it is respectfully submitted that neither the Chief Justice nor any of the Justices on the panel of five may be singled out to be sanctioned for court proceedings.
“I also wish to clarify that the manuscript records of the court in the Record Book of the Supreme Court are summaries of presentations and orders of the day relevant to the business of the court, and nothing more.
“This is the reason why the records of each panel are signed by each Judge on the panel, signifying their agreement that it constitutes a true record of the essence of proceedings and orders from the proceedings.
“Further, no Judge manages or administers the electronically captured records of the court. These records are managed by court recorders. Thus, respectfully, the Petitioner’s demands for liability for the records he is seeking on the matters that occurred concerning him are not appropriately targeted,” the Chief Justice noted in her response.
“Your Excellency, the matters presented in this Petition are unable to lead to a prima facie finding of liability for removal of the Chief Justice.”
Read the full responses below:
‘
BAI/AE
Meanwhile, watch GhanaWeb’s tour of Odweanoma Paragliding Field below:
Meanwhile, catch the first in the series of our special episodes on Forgotten Forts on People and Places on GhanaWeb TV below. This episode focuses on Fort Amsterdam at Abandze: