Chief Justice Torkornoo Removed from Office Following Findings of Misconduct by Inquiry Committee

Ghana’s President, John Dramani Mahama, has dismissed Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo from her position after an investigative committee found evidence of misconduct warranting her removal.

The development follows a formal report submitted on September 1, 2025, by the five-member committee appointed under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution. The committee concluded that the allegations of stated misbehaviour against Torkornoo had been established, compelling the President to act accordingly.

Background to the Inquiry

• Suspension and Inquiry: Earlier in April 2025, President Mahama suspended Justice Torkornoo after determining that there were sufficient grounds, based on multiple petitions alleging misconduct, to warrant a formal investigation.

• Committee Composition: The investigative panel was led by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, with members including Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, former Auditor-General Daniel Yaw Domelevo, Major Flora Bazaanura Dalugo, and Professor James Sefah Dzisah.

• Proceedings: The committee received extensive evidence—approximately 10,000 pages—heard testimony from 13 petitioners, including Torkornoo’s defence comprised of 12 witnesses, and conducted thorough cross-examinations.

• Legal Framework: The decision aligns with Article 146(9), which mandates that the President act on the committee’s recommendation once misconduct is established.
  Graphic OnlineThe Ghanaian Chronicle

Torkornoo’s Response

Justice Torkornoo has consistently challenged the process, arguing that procedural fairness was compromised. She raised concerns over how the inquiry was conducted, including the choice of venue and lack of criteria for misconduct. She has also filed a suit seeking compensation for rights violations and claimed a violation of her procedural and human rights.

What It Means

The removal of a sitting Chief Justice marks a significant constitutional episode in Ghana’s judicial history, underscoring the rule of law and the power of Article 146 as a tool of accountability. While the state asserts compliance with constitutional procedures, critics continue to raise concerns about the broader implications for judicial independence.