AG moves to quash suspended CJ's judicial review action, cites jurisdictional breach, procedural defects
By DL News
Published
1 min read
The Attorney-General’s response, filed through State Attorney Reginald Nii Odoi, insists that the application is fundamentally defective. The AG’s office highlights what it terms a "grave misstatement of capacity" and notes that essential p...
The Office of the Attorney-General has filed a motion at the Human Rights Division of the High Court seeking to strike out a judicial review application brought by suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo. The AG’s office argues that the application is procedurally flawed and legally untenable.
Justice Torkornoo, currently facing removal proceedings under Article 146 of the Constitution, filed for judicial review last week, contending that the process is fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional.
In a strongly worded statement at a press briefing in Accra on June 25, she accused the committee overseeing her potential removal of flouting basic standards of natural justice.
“There is a total absence of compliance with all known rules of fair hearing,” she said. “It is this complete disregard for due process that compelled my legal team to file an application at the High Court to have the proceedings declared null and void.”
However, the Attorney-General’s response, filed through State Attorney Reginald Nii Odoi, insists that the application is fundamentally defective. The AG’s office highlights what it terms a "grave misstatement of capacity" and notes that essential parties were not included in the suit, thereby undermining its legal competence.
The affidavit further asserts that the issues raised by the suspended Chief Justice are either res judicata—already determined by the Supreme Court—or are presently pending before it. According to the AG, this makes the Human Rights Court an inappropriate forum for such a challenge.
“The Human Rights Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this matter,” the affidavit states, warning that proceeding with the case would amount to judicial overreach and defy existing Supreme Court authority.
The motion is part of efforts by the AG to prevent what it sees as duplicative litigation that could undermine the finality of Supreme Court decisions and the integrity of the ongoing constitutional process.
