Supreme Court sets April 2 for NPP MP's application against CJ removal process

The Supreme Court has scheduled April 2, 2025, to consider an injunction application filed by Vincent Ekow Assafuah, the Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, challenging the process initiated by the President for the possible removal of Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo. This follows the submission of three petitions concerning the Chief Justice’s tenure.

This development occurred shortly after the Chief Justice addressed a letter to the President—also copied to relevant stakeholders—requesting access to the three petitions that called for her removal. Her letter came in response to the legal action initiated by the Old Tafo MP, which questioned the constitutionality of the steps being taken.

According to the MP, who is represented by former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame, the Chief Justice should be given an opportunity to respond to the petitions before the President seeks advice from the Council of State, as mandated by the Constitution.

Felix Kwakye Ofosu, Minister for Government Communications, has confirmed that the petitions have already been forwarded to the Council of State in accordance with Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution. Although the specifics of the petitions remain undisclosed, this marks the beginning of a constitutional process that could significantly affect the judiciary's leadership.

In her March 27 letter, Chief Justice Torkornoo emphasized the need for due process, urging the President to furnish her with the petitions and allow her a minimum of seven days to submit a formal response before any consultations are held.

"I respectfully request that the petitions be sent to me, and that I be granted at least seven days to respond. My response should be included in the materials used for the consultations required under Article 146(6), ahead of any consideration to establish a Committee of Inquiry under Article 146(7)," she stated.

Citing Article 2(1)(b) of the 1992 Constitution, Assafuah filed the case as a concerned citizen, seeking clarity on constitutional provisions related to the potential removal of a Chief Justice. He contends that it is constitutionally required for the President to notify and receive input from the Chief Justice before engaging the Council of State on the matter.

The MP’s Requests to the Court:

The suit calls on the Supreme Court to declare that:

The President must inform the Chief Justice of any removal petitions and obtain her comments prior to referring the matter to the Council of State, in line with Articles 146(1), (2), (4), (6), (7), 23, 57(3), and 296.

Bypassing the Chief Justice in this process violates Article 146(6) and jeopardizes the security of tenure guaranteed under the Constitution.

Any procedural omission in this regard undermines judicial independence and contravenes Articles 127(1) and (2).

Failing to obtain the Chief Justice’s response before initiating consultations amounts to a denial of the right to a fair hearing and invalidates the process.

The plaintiff is also requesting any other reliefs the Court deems just and proper.