
Dismiss suspended CJ's injunction request-AG tells Supreme Court
By DL News
Published
1 min read
In a detailed affidavit comprising 20 points, Dr. Ayine contended that an injunction is not the appropriate legal course of action for grievances related to non-receipt of procedural documents.
Attorney-General Dr. Dominic Ayine has asked the Supreme Court to reject Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo’s request for an injunction to suspend the proceedings seeking her removal from office.
In a detailed affidavit comprising 20 points, Dr. Ayine contended that an injunction is not the appropriate legal course of action for grievances related to non-receipt of procedural documents.
Dr. Ayine firmly denied allegations that his office was behind leaks concerning the ongoing removal proceedings. According to him, it was the Chief Justice herself who made the matter public.
He also referenced a recent public opinion poll indicating that a significant majority of respondents support the Chief Justice’s removal. While the poll showed only 20% of Ghanaians opposed her ousting, the Attorney-General rejected assertions that the pollster was aligned with the government.
On the issue of transparency, the Attorney General defended the decision to conduct the inquiry behind closed doors, asserting that it was a constitutional requirement designed to uphold the integrity and dignity of all involved parties, including the Chief Justice.
He further maintained that official records of discussions between the President and the Council of State on the three petitions submitted for Justice Torkornoo’s removal had been lawfully shared with relevant parties.
Dr. Ayine also invoked a recent decision by the Supreme Court on May 21, 2025, in a case brought by the Centre for Citizenship Constitutional and Electoral Systems (CCCES) against the Attorney-General and two others. The Court, he argued, had already ruled against the core claims being raised again by the Chief Justice.
The Attorney-General also addressed concerns about the committee members overseeing the inquiry, emphasizing that they had taken the necessary oaths and that even if any technical issue arose concerning the oath-taking, it would not invalidate the committee’s work.




